成唯識論了義燈 3.64

3.64

At the stages of provisioning (saṃbhāra) and the like, contaminated perfuming induces general and particular retributions, as briefly explained in the Fahua yijue. However, the Yaoji concludes: if it induces general retribution, then Asvabhāva's explanation becomes useless; furthermore, the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra states: 'I do not say that their ignorance initiates karmic formations,' so relying on Asvabhāva is consistent with both scripture and reason. I now maintain that this is not so. In Asvabhāva's commentary, it is based on non-conceptual wisdom; hence the preceding question asks: 'Before attaining the Buddha-fruit, where does non-conceptual wisdom induce maturation results?' The explanation states: 'It is not a maturation cause; because it counteracts that, it is metaphorically designated with that name as an indirect fruit (adhipati-phala).' This non-conceptual state is spoken of generally as both seeds and active manifestations: seeds prior to the path of vision, and active manifestations after the path of vision; therefore, it is said to counteract contaminated fruit-dharmas. If it were contaminated, how could it act as an antidote? When it says: 'thereby nourishing other contaminated karma, causing it to induce maturation,' this refers to what remains outside the uncontaminated. This accords with the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya where the stages of provisioning and application are subsumed under the truth of the path (mārgasatya). However, the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says: 'Furthermore, when a heedful internal ordinary being (pṛthagjana) performs meritorious formations or motionless formations, these are initiated by wholesome minds associated with proper Dharma and proper mental engagement (yoniśomanaskāra); although they induce superior rebirth in happy destinies, ignorance does not act as their predominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya)'—this is stated in terms of the superior practitioner. It says that these are proper Dharma and proper mental engagement, not that there are no associated entanglements (paryavasthāna) and anuśayas serving as conditions to initiate formations. If it were not so, one would have to say that a heedful internal ordinary being creates no new karma. Why then does it only say: 'Because noble learners (śaikṣa) have permanently severed non-shared ignorance, they do not create new karma'? This treatise further states that what is of a contaminated nature is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahāṇa) and induces superior maturation. Another explanation is: the Mahāyānasaṃgraha is based on non-conceptual wisdom not inducing maturation, which does not prevent what possesses conceptual discrimination from inducing maturation results. When the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says of hearing-perfuming (śrutavāsanā) initiated by superior proper mental engagement that 'ignorance does not act as its predominant condition,' this does not prevent middling and lower grades of hearing-perfuming initiated on the basis of a mind of self-grasping from acting in accord with liberation (mokṣabhāgīya) and being able to induce maturation; one cannot say that because it arises from a mind with self-grasping, it is not part of liberation. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and other texts state: 'All conditioned wholesome dharmas within the person of a learner are learner-dharmas.' Since they are named learner-dharmas, they are parts of liberation and so forth. This explanation should be the good one; it will be explained in greater detail in the eighth fascicle.