大乘法苑義林章 5.36

5.36

第二雜染十因者，若據實義，唯得有雜染法之隨說因。何以故者？以大乘中聲非善惡性，若從表故假，得通善惡性。由此道理，亦有二釋也。若雜染法之隨說因，因體通三性，有漏無漏，唯有為。果法通三性，唯有為，唯有漏。若雜染即隨說因者，因體通三性，唯有漏，唯有為。果法通一切皆得。若據展轉義，亦得緣真如故。觀待因者，若雜染法之觀待因，因體通三性，有漏無漏，有為無為。果體通三性，唯有漏，唯有為也。若雜染即觀待因，因體通三性，唯有漏，唯有為。果體通一切皆得。此是總說。若別說者，此有四句。若待所受有能受，因體通一切，果法唯有為、有漏、通三性。若待能受有所受，因體通三性、唯有漏、有為也，果法通一切皆得也。若以能受待能受者，因果性同也。其中有別，如理應思。大乘中既無不善色等，即無所受待所受也。若據表業，始從足骨待踝骨等，因果性通，於理何失？其牽引、生起二因，俱是持業也，因果性同故。若據業能引識等五果起，少有雜染法牽引因，因體通二性、唯有為、有漏，果唯無記、唯有漏、有為也。言攝受因者，若雜染法之攝受因，因體通三性、有為無為、有漏無漏也，果法性同前。若雜染法即攝受者，因體通三性、唯有漏、有為也，果性通一切也。言引發者，若雜染法之引發因，因體通三性，唯有漏，唯有為非無為也。果性同前也。亦可無此釋也。若雜染法即引發因者，因體通三性、唯有為、有漏，果法通三性、有漏無漏、唯有為也。若據因有漏善法斷證離繫果，何妨果法通無為耶？言定異因者，若雜染法之定異因，當須分別。若據無記為果，果法唯無記，但有為、有漏。因體通善惡二性，唯有為、有漏。若三性為果者，雜染法即定異因，因果俱通三性、唯有為、有漏也。言同事因者，若雜染法之同事因，因體通三性、有為無為、有漏無漏，果法通三性、唯有為、有漏也。若雜染即同事因，因體狹果性寬也。言相違因者，唯得有雜染之相違因，因體通有為無為、唯無漏、唯善性也。其果即狹。言不相違者，若持業釋，因體狹、果體通一切。若依主釋，果狹因寬也。

Second, the ten causes of the defiled: If considered according to the actual meaning, one only obtains the conventional-expression cause of defiled phenomena. Why is this? Because in the Mahāyāna, sound is not of good or bad nature; only conventionally based on manifestation can it be common to good and bad natures. Due to this principle, there are also two explanations. If it is the conventional-expression cause of defiled phenomena, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, sāsrava and anāsrava, and is only conditioned; the effect phenomena are common to the three natures, only conditioned, and only sāsrava. If the defiled is itself the conventional-expression cause, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, only sāsrava, and only conditioned; its effect phenomena are common to all. If considered according to mediated meaning, it can also take tathatā as an object. As for the reliance cause: If it is the reliance cause of defiled phenomena, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, sāsrava and anāsrava, conditioned and unconditioned; the essence of the effect is common to the three natures, only sāsrava, and only conditioned. If the defiled is itself the reliance cause, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, only sāsrava, and only conditioned; the essence of the effect is common to all. This is the general explanation. If explained distinctively, this has four alternatives: If, relying on what is experienced, the experient exists, the essence of the cause is common to all, and the effect phenomena are only conditioned, sāsrava, and common to the three natures. If, relying on the experient, what is experienced exists, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, only sāsrava, and conditioned, while the effect phenomena are common to all. If, relying on the experient, the experient exists, the natures of cause and effect are the same. Within this there are distinctions, which should be reflected upon properly. Since in the Mahāyāna there is no unwholesome form and so forth, there is no relying on what is experienced for what is experienced to exist. If based on manifest action, beginning from the foot-bone relying on the ankle-bone and so forth, the natures of cause and effect are common—what flaw is there in principle? The two causes of drawing-forth and generating are both karmadhāraya [compounds], because the natures of cause and effect are the same. If considered in terms of karma being able to draw forth the five effects of consciousness and so forth, there is minimally the drawing-forth cause of defiled phenomena: the essence of the cause is common to two natures, only conditioned and sāsrava, and the effect is only indeterminate, only sāsrava and conditioned. As for the sustaining cause: If it is the sustaining cause of defiled phenomena, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, conditioned and unconditioned, sāsrava and anāsrava, and the nature of the effect phenomena is the same as before. If a defiled phenomenon is itself the sustaining [cause], the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, only sāsrava and conditioned, and the nature of the effect is common to all. As for the initiating [cause]: If it is the initiating cause of defiled phenomena, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, only sāsrava, only conditioned and not unconditioned; the nature of the effect is the same as before. It is also permissible not to have this explanation. If a defiled phenomenon is itself the initiating cause, the cause is common to the three natures, only conditioned and sāsrava, while the effect phenomena are common to the three natures, sāsrava and anāsrava, and only conditioned. If considered in terms of anāsrava good phenomena acting as the cause to sever [defilements] and realize the fruit of disconnection, what objection is there that the effect phenomena are common to the unconditioned? As for the determinative difference cause: If it is the determinative difference cause of defiled phenomena, one must make a distinction. If considering the indeterminate as the effect, the effect phenomena are only indeterminate, and only conditioned and sāsrava; the essence of the cause is common to both good and bad natures, and is only conditioned and sāsrava. If the three natures are the effect, the defiled phenomenon is itself the determinative difference cause, and cause and effect are both common to the three natures, only conditioned and sāsrava. As for the co-working cause: If it is the co-working cause of defiled phenomena, the essence of the cause is common to the three natures, conditioned and unconditioned, sāsrava and anāsrava; the effect phenomena are common to the three natures, only conditioned and sāsrava. If the defiled is itself the co-working cause, the essence of the cause is narrow and the nature of the effect is broad. As for the opposing cause: one only obtains the opposing cause of the defiled; the essence of the cause is common to conditioned and unconditioned, only anāsrava, and only of good nature; its effect is narrow. As for the non-opposing: In the karmadhāraya compound, the essence of the cause is narrow and the essence of the effect is common to all. In the tatpuruṣa compound, the effect is narrow and the cause is broad.