大乘義章 4.29

4.29

第二門中開合廣略明因緣相。因緣之法，廣略不定，如《涅槃經．梵行品》說。或說為一，謂十二因緣唯一有為。或說為二，謂十二緣唯因與果。過無明行，現愛取有，是其因分；現在識等，當來生死，是其果分。或說為三，於中乃有三門不同：一三世分別。無明與行，是說過去。識支不定，若取因中種子心識以為識支，是屬過去；若取最初受生心識以為識支，是屬現在。若說求生心識為識，義則不定望其過因說為現在，望其現報說為過去。名色六入乃至觸受，一向現在。愛取有三，義則不定。論其體性，起在於今，判屬現在；論其功力，能有當果，以因從果，判屬未來。《地經》之中據斯說也。若如是者，過去之因何不從果判為現在？釋言：有以。過因現果，起之已定，故隨世別，不相從說。未來未有，由因故有，是故攝因從果為未。生死二支，定屬未來。此是第一三世分別。二三道分別。如《地經》說，無明愛取，是煩惱道。行有二支，是其業道。識與名色六入觸受生死，七分說為苦道。無明愛取並是煩惱，以何義故，過說無明、現彰愛取？是義應齊，但今為分，三世別異、隱顯互論，等分三世，非無所以。釋有兩義：一本末分別。無明是本，理在先彰，過去說之；愛取是末，理在後論，現在說之。二強弱分別。無明煩惱，迷其本際，建集生死，其力功強，過去說之；愛之與取，牽生未來，其力增上，現在說之。行有二支，同皆是業。何故過去彰其行名，現在說有，理亦應齊。為分三世差別異名，等分三世，非無所以。過去世中集起已定，當相名行；未來未有，由業有之，故就功能說為有耳。識等五果生死二報，同皆是苦，以何義故，現彰識等、未說生死？理亦應齊，為分世別，隱顯異名，等分三世，亦有所以。現報起竟，故就報體說為識等；未來未起，就過以名，令物生厭，故說生死。此是第二三道分別。三苦分別，如《地經》說。無明行識乃至六入，名為行苦。觸受二支，名為苦苦。餘因緣分，名為壞苦。三苦相通，何故如是？理實齊通，但今為明觸受二支現諸緣生心性是苦，於彼苦上加現事惱，苦上加苦，故云苦苦。無明行等，起今義顯，故說為行。行體是苦，故名行苦。愛取有等，趣向未來生老死等敗壞之果，故名為壞。壞體是苦，故名壞苦。此隨麁細隱顯論之，非盡道理。此是增數三門分別。或說為四，如《涅槃》說，謂無明行、生及老死、愛之與取，攝入無明。有攝在行。識等五果攝入生死，故說四也。或分為五，如《涅槃》說，謂受、愛、取、有及生也。識等五果攝入受中，無明攝入愛取之中，行入有中，死入生中，故說五也。或說為六，如《涅槃》說，所謂三世因之與果。或說為七，如《涅槃》說，謂識、名色、六入、觸、受、愛及取也，餘略不論。或說為八，如《涅槃》說，謂識、名色乃至於有。無明攝入愛取之中，行入有中，生死攝入識等支中，故但說八。或說為九，如《城喻經》說，除前三支，宣說餘九。或說十一，如《為薩遮尼乾子說》，除生一法，說餘十一。薩遮尼乾子，弟共姊生，佛護其意，不說生支。或時具說十二因緣，廣如經辨。此之廣略，隨化故爾。

The second gate explains the characteristics of dependent origination by expanding and contracting, expounding broadly and briefly. The dharma of dependent origination is variable in breadth and brevity, as stated in the 'Chapter on Pure Conduct' of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Sometimes it is explained as one: that is, the twelve links of dependent origination are merely one conditioned [phenomenon]. Sometimes it is explained as two: that is, the twelve links are merely cause and effect. Past ignorance and karmic formations, and present craving, grasping, and existence, are the causal part; present consciousness and the rest, and future birth and old age and death, are the effect part. Sometimes it is explained as three, wherein there are three different approaches: First, differentiation according to the three periods of time. Ignorance and karmic formations are spoken of as past. The link of consciousness is unfixed: if one takes the mind-consciousness as seed within the cause to be the link of consciousness, it belongs to the past; if one takes the mind-consciousness of initial conception to be the link of consciousness, it belongs to the present. If one speaks of the mind-consciousness seeking rebirth as consciousness, the meaning is unfixed: in relation to past causes it is spoken of as present, while in relation to present retribution it is spoken of as past. Name-and-form, the six sense bases, through contact and feeling, are exclusively present. The three—craving, grasping, and existence—are unfixed in meaning. Discussing their essential nature, arising as they do in the present, they are judged to belong to the present; discussing their efficacious power, they can bring about future effects, so subsuming the cause under the effect, they are judged to belong to the future. It is spoken of according to this in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra. If this is so, why is the past cause not subsumed under the effect and judged to be present? It is explained: there is a reason. Past cause and present effect have already definitely arisen, so they follow the differentiation of the periods of time and are not spoken of by subsuming one under the other. The future does not yet exist and exists due to causes; therefore, cause is subsumed under effect as future. The two links of birth and death definitely belong to the future. This is the first differentiation according to the three periods of time. Second, differentiation according to the three paths. As stated in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, ignorance, craving, and grasping are the path of defilements. The two links of karmic formations and existence are the path of karma. The seven divisions of consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases, contact, feeling, birth, and death, are spoken of as the path of suffering. Ignorance, craving, and grasping are all alike defilements; for what reason is ignorance spoken of in the past, while craving and grasping are manifested in the present? These meanings should properly be equivalent, but now to differentiate the distinctions of the three periods of time, discussing the hidden and manifest interchangeably to divide them equally among the three periods of time, it is not without reason. The explanation has two meanings: First, differentiation of root and branch. Ignorance is the root, so by principle it is manifested first and spoken of in the past; craving and grasping are the branches, so by principle they are discussed later and spoken of in the present. Second, differentiation of strong and weak. The defilement of ignorance is deluded regarding the original limit and builds up birth and death; its power and efficacy are strong, so it is spoken of in the past; craving and grasping pull along rebirth in the future; their power is predominant, so they are spoken of in the present. The two links of karmic formations and existence are both alike karma. Why is the name 'karmic formations' manifested in the past, while 'existence' is spoken of in the present? By principle they should also be equivalent. In order to differentiate distinct names for the three periods of time, dividing them equally among the three periods of time, it is not without reason. Having already definitely been accumulated and arisen in the past, they are named 'karmic formations' according to their characteristics; the future does not yet exist and exists on account of karma, so they are spoken of as 'existence' in terms of their function. The five effects of consciousness and the rest, and the two retributions of birth and death, are all alike suffering; for what reason are consciousness and the rest manifested in the present, while birth and death are spoken of in the future? By principle they should also be equivalent. In order to differentiate the periods of time, with different names that are hidden or manifest, dividing them equally among the three periods of time also has a reason. Present retribution having already arisen, they are spoken of as consciousness and the rest in terms of the entity of retribution; the future not yet having arisen, it is named in terms of its faults to cause beings to give rise to revulsion, so it is spoken of as birth and death. This is the second differentiation according to the three paths. Third, differentiation according to the three kinds of suffering, as stated in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra. Ignorance, karmic formations, consciousness, through the six sense bases, are named the suffering of conditioned existence. The two links of contact and feeling are named the suffering of suffering. The remaining divisions of dependent origination are named the suffering of change. The three kinds of suffering are universally applicable; why is it like this? By principle they are indeed equally applicable, but now, to clarify that the nature of mind arising from various conditions in the present two links of contact and feeling is suffering, and that atop that suffering present worldly afflictions are added—suffering atop suffering—it is therefore called the suffering of suffering. For ignorance, karmic formations, and the rest, the meaning of giving rise to the present is evident, so they are spoken of as conditioned formations. The essence of conditioned formations is suffering, so it is named the suffering of conditioned existence. Craving, grasping, existence, and the rest tend toward the deteriorating effects of birth, old age, death, and the like in the future, so they are named change. The essence of change is suffering, so it is named the suffering of change. This discusses them according to coarse and subtle, hidden and manifest; it does not exhaust the principles. This is the differentiation of the three gates according to incremental numbers. Or it is spoken of as four, as stated in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: that is, ignorance, karmic formations, birth, and old age and death. Craving and grasping are subsumed under ignorance. Existence is subsumed under karmic formations. The five effects of consciousness and the rest are subsumed under birth and death; therefore four are spoken of. Or it is divided into five, as stated in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: that is, feeling, craving, grasping, existence, and birth. The five effects of consciousness and the rest are subsumed under feeling; ignorance is subsumed under craving and grasping; karmic formations enter into existence; death enters into birth; therefore five are spoken of. Or it is spoken of as six, as stated in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: that is, the causes and effects of the three periods of time. Or it is spoken of as seven, as stated in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: that is, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, and grasping; the rest are omitted from discussion. Or it is spoken of as eight, as stated in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: that is, consciousness, name-and-form, through existence. Ignorance is subsumed under craving and grasping; karmic formations enter into existence; birth and death are subsumed under the links of consciousness and the rest; therefore only eight are spoken of. Or it is spoken of as nine, as stated in the Nagarasopama Sūtra: excluding the previous three links, the remaining nine are expounded. Or it is spoken of as eleven, as in the Expounding for Satyaka Nirgrantha-putra: excluding the single dharma of birth, the remaining eleven are expounded. Satyaka Nirgrantha-putra was born together with his older sister by the same father; the Buddha, protecting his feelings, did not speak of the link of birth. Or sometimes all twelve links of dependent origination are spoken of in full, as detailed extensively in the sūtras. These variations in breadth and brevity are thus merely in accordance with converting [sentient beings].