大乘義章 3.36

3.36

初辨其相。六因之義，出《毘曇論》，《大智論》中亦廣分別。一所作因、二共有因、三自分因、四者遍因、五相應因、六者報因。故彼偈言「所作共自分，一切相應報。從是六種因，轉生有為法。」所作因者，諸法起時，除其自體，萬法不障，令其得生，名所作因。如空生色，如地生於草木等也。故彼偈言「相似不相似，各除其自性，一切是作因，生時不障故。」共有因者，諸法起時，同時同性共有之法展轉為因，名共有因。如心心法集起之時，同時即有諸心數法生住滅等，說為共有。若是禪定無漏之心，同時即有定道無作，望彼心法亦是共有。如是色法及非色心不相應法集起之時，同時即有生住滅等，為共有也。自分因者，同類之法藉前生後，名自分因。於中略以四義分別：一三性分別，所謂善、惡、無記性也。善法唯與善法為因，不與不善無記為因。不善、無記望彼善法亦無因義。不善還與不善為因。若望無記，義須分別。無記有二：一者穢污、二者白淨。欲界地中身邊二見，及上界一切煩惱，名為穢污。報生、威儀、工巧、變化非煩惱故，名為白淨。不善與彼穢污無記互得為因，同是染污煩惱法故；若望白淨則無因義。無記法中迭互相望，穢污還與穢污為因，白淨還與白淨為因。穢污白淨二種相望則無因義。二品數分別。品者所謂上中下品。善中有二：一者生得，過去久習，生便得之。二者方便，現在修起。若論生得，上中下品展轉為因，以彼先成，非增習故。若論方便，下為勝因，勝非下因，同品相望亦有因義。不善法中，上中下品展轉為因，以彼性成，非始習故。又從上地退生下時，下地煩惱上中下品一時頓得，隨何先起則為因也。無記法中，穢污無記與不善同。白淨之中，四種相望。生得唯與報生、威儀、工巧、變化四種為因；威儀唯與威儀、工巧、變化為因；工巧唯與工巧、變化二種為因；變化唯與變化為因。三就時分別。時謂三世。過去世中善惡等法，前起之者與後為因，及與現在未來為因。現在世中善惡等法，前起之者與後為因，及望未來為自分因。未來之法，還望未來，無自分因，以未起法無先後故。四就處分別。處謂九地，始從欲界乃至非想。若有漏法，當地為因，異地相望則無因義，以有漏法異地相望因果斷故。若無漏法，異地相望展轉為因，以無漏法不繫地故，雖復異地，展轉為因，下為勝因，勝非下因。言遍因者，苦集諦下疑見無明，能生一切染污法故，名為遍因。總相如是。於中略以四句分別。一定別其相。遍因不同，有十一種：苦下有七，所謂五見、疑及無明；集下有四，邪見、見取、疑及無明，是十一也。然苦諦下具有十使，五利五鈍，集下有七，謂貪、瞋、慢、邪見、見取、疑及無明，何故但說苦下七使集四使為遍因乎？以此十一迷理之惑，通迷一切有漏之法，能增一切染污法故，說為遍因。貪瞋及慢緣事煩惱，非是通迷一切有漏苦集之理，不能增長一切染污，以是義故不名遍因。滅道諦下諸使煩惱，何故不名為遍因乎？然滅道下諸使煩惱迷於滅道，不能迷縛一切煩惱，不能增長一切染污，以是義故不名遍因。十一遍使迷縛一切五行煩惱，一切煩惱苦集諦攝，以是義故，唯就苦集說為遍因。修道四使亦是事中縛事煩惱，不能增長一切染污，以是義故不名遍因。二遍使遍因相對辨異。異有三種：一寬狹不同。十一遍使唯是苦集二諦之下見疑無明，不通其餘心心數法、生住滅等，是名為狹。遍因通攝苦集諦下見疑無明，及餘一切心心數法住滅等，是名為寬。二長短不同。十一遍使統通三世，名之為長。遍因唯在過去現在，不通未來，是名為短。三就所生所使之法通局不同。十一遍使遍使一切有漏之法，是故名通。遍因唯生染污之法，自餘善法白淨無記非彼所生，就染中從其生者望之說因，不從生者則非彼因，是故名局。遍使、遍因差別如是。三就時分別。時謂三世。此三世中，前為後因，後非前因。如過去世前起煩惱，望後說因，及望現在未來為因。現在世中，前局後因，望未來世亦得說因。未來還望未來之法則無因義，未來未起，無前後故。四就處分別。處謂欲界乃至非想。此地地中，當地說因，不望他地，彼染污法，繫地別故。故彼偈言「苦集於自地，見疑及無明，是一切遍因。」相應因者，止在心法。如心起時，即有一切諸心數法與心相應，是相應法，展轉相助、有所為作，名相應因。於中心王望數說因，心心相望則無因義，一時中無二心故。數望心王亦得說因，但就數中異數相望展轉為因，非同一數相望說因。言報因者，一切三界有漏善法及與不善，能生一切苦樂等報，故名報因。因相如是。

First, the explanation of their characteristics. The meaning of the six causes comes from the *Abhidharma treatises*, and it is also explained extensively in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*. They are: first, the efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu); second, the coexistent cause (sahabhū-hetu); third, the cause of equal status (sabhāga-hetu); fourth, the universal cause (sarvatraga-hetu); fifth, the associated cause (samprayuktaka-hetu); and sixth, the retributive cause (vipāka-hetu). Hence their verse states: 'Efficient, coexistent, equal status, / Universal, associated, and retributive. / Conditioned dharmas arise in succession / From these six kinds of causes.' As for the efficient cause: when dharmas arise, aside from their own intrinsic nature, all the myriad dharmas do not obstruct them, allowing them to be able to arise; this is called the efficient cause. It is like space giving rise to form, or the earth producing grass, trees, and the like. Therefore their verse states: 'Similar and dissimilar, / Each setting aside its own intrinsic nature; / All are efficient causes, / Because at the time of arising they do not obstruct.' As for the coexistent cause: when dharmas arise, dharmas that are simultaneous, of identical nature, and coexist act as causes mutually with one another; this is called the coexistent cause. For instance, when mind and mental factors arise together, at the same time there are the caittas arising, abiding, and ceasing, which are said to be coexistent. If it is a mind of dhyāna or an anāsrava mind, at the same time there is the non-manifesting [karma] of concentration and the path (dhyāna and anāsrava saṃvara), which, in relation to that mental dharma, is also coexistent. In this way, when form dharmas as well as dharmas unassociated with form or mind arise together, at the same time there are arising, abiding, ceasing, and the like, which are coexistent. As for the cause of equal status: dharmas of the same class that depend on the earlier to give rise to the later are called causes of equal status. Within this, they are distinguished briefly by four meanings. First, distinction by the three natures: namely, the natures of good, bad, and indeterminate. Good dharmas serve as causes only for good dharmas, not for bad or indeterminate ones. Bad and indeterminate dharmas, in relation to those good dharmas, also have no meaning of being causes. Bad dharmas likewise serve as causes for bad dharmas. When viewed in relation to indeterminate dharmas, a distinction must be made in meaning: indeterminate dharmas are of two kinds—first, defiled; second, pure. In the realm of desire, the two views of identity and extremes, along with all afflictions in the higher realms, are called defiled. Retributive-born, deportment, craftsmanship, and transformative dharmas, not being afflictions, are called pure. Bad dharmas and those defiled indeterminate dharmas can mutually serve as causes, because both are defiled, afflictive dharmas; but in relation to pure [indeterminate dharmas], there is no meaning of being a cause. In relation among indeterminate dharmas themselves, defiled dharmas serve as causes for defiled dharmas, and pure dharmas serve as causes for pure dharmas; when viewed in relation between the two—defiled and pure—there is no meaning of being a cause. Second, distinction by the levels of quality: levels refer to the superior, middling, and inferior grades. Within the good there are two kinds: first, innate, acquired naturally at birth through long practice in the past; second, acquired by expedient means, cultivated and aroused in the present. If one discusses the innate, the superior, middling, and inferior grades serve as causes mutually for one another, because they are already established and are not due to additional training. If one discusses those of expedient means, the inferior is a cause for the superior, but the superior is not a cause for the inferior; viewed in relation to the same grade, there is also the meaning of being a cause. Among bad dharmas, the superior, middling, and inferior grades serve as causes mutually for one another, because their nature is already established and is not freshly trained. Furthermore, when one regresses from a higher realm and is reborn into a lower realm, the superior, middling, and inferior grades of the afflictions of the lower realm are attained all at once; whichever arises first then serves as the cause. Among indeterminate dharmas, defiled indeterminate dharmas are the same as bad dharmas. Among the pure, viewed in relation across the four kinds: the innate serves as a cause only for the four kinds—retributive-born, deportment, craftsmanship, and transformative; deportment serves as a cause only for deportment, craftsmanship, and transformative; craftsmanship serves as a cause only for craftsmanship and transformative; and transformative serves as a cause only for transformative. Third, distinction with respect to time: time refers to the three times. Among good, bad, and other dharmas of the past time, those arising earlier serve as causes for the later, and also serve as causes for the present and the future. Among good, bad, and other dharmas of the present time, those arising earlier serve as causes for the later, and serve as causes of equal status in relation to the future. Dharmas of the future, viewed in relation to the future itself, have no cause of equal status, because unarisen dharmas have no before and after. Fourth, distinction with respect to plane: planes refer to the nine planes, starting from the realm of desire up to neither-perception-nor-non-perception. If they are sāsrava dharmas, they serve as causes within their own plane; when viewed across different planes there is no meaning of being a cause, because for sāsrava dharmas cause and effect are severed across different planes. If they are anāsrava dharmas, when viewed across different planes they serve as causes mutually for one another, because anāsrava dharmas are not bound to planes; although they are in different planes, they serve as causes mutually for one another, with the inferior being a cause for the superior, but the superior not being a cause for the inferior. As for the universal cause: because doubt, wrong view, and ignorance under the truths of suffering and origination can produce all defiled dharmas, they are called universal causes. Such is the general characteristic. Within this, they are distinguished briefly by four points. First, specifically determining their characteristics. Universal causes differ, having eleven kinds: seven under suffering—namely, the five views, doubt, and ignorance; and four under origination—false views, adherence to views, doubt, and ignorance; these make eleven. However, under the truth of suffering there are fully ten proclivities, five sharp and five dull, and under origination there are seven, namely greed, anger, arrogance, false views, adherence to views, doubt, and ignorance; why is it that only the seven proclivities under suffering and four under origination are said to be universal causes? Because these eleven delusions regarding principle universally confuse all sāsrava dharmas and can increase all defiled dharmas, they are said to be universal causes. Greed, anger, and arrogance are afflictions directed toward phenomena, not universally confusing all the principles of sāsrava suffering and origination, and cannot increase all defilements; for this reason they are not called universal causes. Why are the various proclivities and afflictions under the truths of cessation and the path not called universal causes? Because the various proclivities and afflictions under cessation and the path are deluded regarding cessation and the path; they cannot confuse and bind all afflictions, nor can they increase all defilements; for this reason they are not called universal causes. The eleven universal proclivities confuse and bind all afflictions across the five aggregates; all afflictions are subsumed under the truths of suffering and origination; for this reason, it is only with respect to suffering and origination that they are said to be universal causes. The four proclivities [abandoned] in the path of cultivation are also afflictions that bind regarding phenomena, and cannot increase all defilements; for this reason they are not called universal causes. Second, contrasting the universal proclivities with the universal causes to determine their difference. The differences are of three kinds: First, difference in breadth. The eleven universal proclivities are only the views, doubt, and ignorance under the two truths of suffering and origination, and do not extend to the remaining minds, caittas, arising, abiding, ceasing, and the like; this is called narrow. The universal causes broadly subsume the views, doubt, and ignorance under the truths of suffering and origination, as well as all other minds, caittas, abiding, ceasing, and the like; this is called broad. Second, difference in duration. The eleven universal proclivities comprehensively extend throughout the three times; this is called long. Universal causes exist only in the past and present, not extending to the future; this is called short. Third, difference in scope regarding the dharmas produced and impelled. The eleven universal proclivities universally impel all sāsrava dharmas; therefore they are called universal. Universal causes produce only defiled dharmas; other good dharmas and pure indeterminate dharmas are not produced by them; among defilements, they are called causes with respect to those produced by them, but are not causes for those not produced by them; therefore they are called limited. Such is the distinction between universal proclivities and universal causes. Third, distinction with respect to time: time refers to the three times. Within these three times, the earlier is a cause for the later, while the later is not a cause for the earlier. For instance, an affliction arising earlier in the past time is called a cause in relation to the later, and serves as a cause in relation to the present and future. In the present time, the earlier is limited to being a cause for the later, and can also be said to be a cause in relation to the future. In the future, in relation to the dharmas of the future themselves, there is no meaning of being a cause, because future ones have not yet arisen and have no before and after. Fourth, distinction with respect to plane: planes refer to the realm of desire up to neither-perception-nor-non-perception. In each of these planes, they are called causes within their own plane and not in relation to other planes, because those defiled dharmas are distinct in their binding to planes. Therefore their verse states: 'Under suffering and origination in one's own plane, / Views, doubt, and ignorance / Are all the universal causes.' As for the associated cause: it resides solely in mental dharmas. Just as when a mind arises, there are all the caittas associated with that mind, these associated dharmas mutually assist and operate together; this is called the associated cause. Within this, the primary mind is called a cause in relation to the mental factors, but minds viewed in relation to one another have no meaning of being causes, because at one single moment there cannot be two minds. Mental factors can also be called causes in relation to the primary mind; yet within mental factors, different mental factors serve as causes mutually for one another, whereas the same single mental factor is not called a cause in relation to itself. As for the retributive cause: all sāsrava good dharmas and bad dharmas of the three realms can produce all suffering and pleasant retributions; therefore they are called retributive causes. Such are the characteristics of the causes.