大乘義章 4.10

4.10

次攝染因，以之為二：十因之中，生因、自種此之二因唯是生因。問曰：向前無記法中自種因者，亦是生因亦方便因，今此何故唯既生因？釋言：有以。無記法中種子望芽亦是自種，望餘莖等唯是自種，而非生因，故兼兩義。今此染中結業，望生乃至老死，皆是自種，悉是生因，是故自種唯是生因。何故如是？染法力強，一因堪能親生多果，故望生死俱是生因。無記力弱，一種不能親生多果，故望唯莖等不名生因。若使染中通望老死為生因者，何故論言種子於芽是名生因？彼乃且就無記言耳。隨說、攝因、違不違因，此之四種唯是方便，義同前釋。餘之四因，義有兩兼：於四因中，正因生果齊是生因，緣因起報悉是方便。如以有中，以有結業生於後果，判屬生因；以有外緣起於後報，判屬方便。種植因中云何具二？種植因者，內外和合，方名種殖。就種植中，分取結業生於後果，判屬生因；外緣生果，判屬方便。長因之中云何具二？如論中說「從無明行乃至老死，漸次增長，是名長因。」就此生果增長之中，因增至果，判屬生因；因因自增、果果自長，判屬方便。問曰：何故因增至果得非生因，因因自增、果果自長說為方便？釋言：有以。從因生果，因果位別，因滅果興，生相顯現，故說生因。因還望因、果還望果，無如是義，故不名生，但名方便。若通說生，理亦無傷。共事因中云何具二？若更分別，不異以有乃至自種，總說彼等為共事故。染法如是（此三門竟）。

Next, subsuming defiled causes, taking them as two: Among the ten causes, two causes—the cause of generating and the cause of its own seed—are solely generative causes. Question: In the indeterminate dharmas discussed earlier, the cause of its own seed was both a generative cause and an expedient cause; why here is it solely a generative cause? Answer: There is a reason. In indeterminate dharmas, the seed in relation to the sprout is also its own seed, but in relation to the rest, such as the stem, it is solely its own seed and not a generative cause; hence it encompasses both meanings. Here in defiled [dharmas], fettering karma, viewed in relation to birth down to aging-and-death, is in all cases its own seed and in all cases a generative cause; therefore, the cause of its own seed is solely a generative cause. Why is this? The power of defiled dharmas is strong: a single cause is capable of directly generating multiple fruits; therefore, viewed in relation to birth-and-death, all are generative causes. Indeterminate [dharmas] are weak in power: a single [cause] cannot directly generate multiple fruits; therefore, viewed in relation only to the stem and so forth, it is not called a generative cause. If in defiled [dharmas] it is generally regarded as a generative cause in relation to aging-and-death, why does the treatise state that 'the seed in relation to the sprout is called the generative cause'? That was merely stated in terms of indeterminate [external things]. The four causes—conventional expression, gathering, contrary, and non-contrary—are solely expedient, the meaning of which is identical to the previous explanation. The remaining four causes have a dual meaning: within the four causes, where the primary cause generates the fruit, they are all generative causes; where conditional causes give rise to retribution, they are all expedient. As in the cause by being: because there is fettering karma that produces subsequent fruit, it is determined to belong to the generative cause; because there are external conditions that give rise to subsequent retribution, it is determined to belong to the expedient. How does the cause of planting possess both? Regarding the cause of planting, only when internal and external combine is it called planting. Within planting, taking specifically fettering karma producing subsequent fruit is determined to belong to the generative cause; external conditions producing the fruit is determined to belong to the expedient. How does the cause of growth possess both? As the treatise states: 'From ignorance and volitional formations down to aging-and-death, gradually increasing is called the cause of growth.' Within this increase that produces fruit, the cause increasing to the fruit is determined to belong to the generative cause; causes themselves increasing causes, and fruits themselves growing fruits, are determined to belong to the expedient. Question: Why is a cause increasing to the fruit not an expedient cause, whereas causes themselves increasing causes and fruits themselves growing fruits are called expedient? Answer: There is a reason. Producing a fruit from a cause involves distinct stages of cause and fruit; when the cause perishes, the fruit arises, and the characteristic of generation is clearly apparent; hence it is called a generative cause. Looking from cause back to cause, or from fruit back to fruit, lacks such a meaning, so it is not called generative, but merely called expedient. If it is spoken of as generative in a broad sense, the principle is also not harmed. How does the cause of shared function possess both? If analyzed further, it is no different from the cause by being down to the cause of its own seed, speaking of all of them collectively because they share a common function. Defiled dharmas are like this (this concludes the third section).