成唯識論了義燈 6.31

6.31

Regarding the treatise's "the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states" and so forth: The primary commentary says: The lead-in seeds and generating seeds unite all direct-cause seeds among the six causes; prior to being moistened and before maturing, they are all called lead-in seeds, which comprises the entirety of the lead-in cause and a fraction of four causes, excluding the generating cause. Once moistened onward, they are all called already matured, which comprises the entirety of the generating cause and a fraction of four causes, excluding the lead-in cause; this is this generating cause. Ximing says: Among the six causes, all direct causes that are unmoistened and immature are called lead-in seeds; those already moistened and matured are called generating seeds. The *Yaoji* says: Some say [one interpretation] accords with what precedes but contradicts what follows, while another interpretation accords with what follows but contradicts what precedes; however, it says that the latter interpretation is theoretically superior. I now say this is not so. Following Ximing's explanation, if all six causes are common to both lead-in and generating, then what is the difference between the two types of seeds, lead-in and generating? If one says that they are divided into two types of direct-cause seeds based on the state of the fruit—when directly producing a present fruit they are already moistened and matured, hence called generating seeds, and these very causal seeds, with respect to subsequent own-fruits, are unmoistened and immature, hence called lead-in seeds, and therefore are common to both—this statement is also incorrect. Following this, generating would be first and lead-in would be after; moreover, it is impossible that looking toward distant and proximate fruits with respect to being moistened could also be split into two. The preceding text itself says: "The state of being immature means being able to lead to distant own-fruits; the state of being already matured means being able to generate proximate own-fruits." Therefore we know that lead-in is precisely the lead-in seed, and generating is precisely the generating seed. Contradicting those texts, they cannot be further divided. When the subsequent text says: "because all direct-cause seeds among those six causes are subsumed within these two states," the meaning is that for a seed that is already moistened, speaking retrospectively of when it was unmoistened, it is called a lead-in seed; for an unmoistened seed, by implication, once moistened onward, it is called a generating seed. When it says that those six causes are all subsumed within these two states, in terms of their substance, it is simply that the unmoistened in their entirety are called lead-in seeds, and the moistened in their entirety are called generating seeds; therefore, it does not contradict what follows. However, the subsequent treatise's explanation of the *Vitarkavicārabhūmi* passage, in speaking of the generating cause, differs from its explanation of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* passage. That passage does not divide them based on moistened and unmoistened, but merely takes whatever directly produces its own fruit as generating; it is not of a single pattern.