成唯識論了義燈 3.71

3.71

Regarding the meaning of 'capable of perfuming' (能熏), the second [condition] is 'having superior activity' (有勝用). Ximing says: As for the mind and mental factors of karmically induced fruition (vipāka), Dharmapāla made no distinction. His disciples are divided into two interpretations: One says that what is karmically induced definitely cannot perfume; it only arises by nature, necessarily assisted by karma. If relying on this explanation, the fruition mind and mental factors, etc., refer to the mind and mental factors induced by completing karma in the six consciousnesses. The second says that there are two kinds of karmically induced [states]: the strong can perfume, whereas the inferior do not perfume. If relying on this explanation, 'etc.' includes the inferior ones. The Tripiṭaka Master's intention took the latter explanation to be superior. [Ximing] also says that the first interpretation does not allow the reflex image (nimittabhāga) to perfume the seed of the archetype (bimbabhāga). Now I say: Neither of these statements is reasonable. Why so? According to the first interpretation, the archetype is not perfumed and produced by the reflex image, so the transforming consciousnesses could not serve as the hetupratyaya (causal condition) for the ālayavijñāna, which contradicts Dharmapāla's explanation. As for the second interpretation, if it is karma-induced, it is called vipāka; although the two fruits—projected (leading) and completing—are distinct, because they are equally projected by karma, both are called vipāka, and neither can perfume, since both are vipāka. Because the treatise does not distinguish them, and because there is no textual evidence, and since both are completing fruition, why should 'etc.' only include the inferior? It ought to include both superior and inferior. If it is not karma-projected, but simply arises through discrimination, then it is capable of perfuming; its nature is not vipāka, but rather born-of-fruition (vipākaja). Born-of-fruition is broader: whether induced by karma or not, both are born-of-fruition. Here the exclusion of vipāka applies to that which is karmically induced: because its nature is weak and inferior, it is not capable of perfuming. That which does not depend on karmic force but arises through strong discrimination—this born-of-fruition, as well as deportment and technical craft, when not projected by karma—is also subsumed under what is capable of perfuming.