宗鏡錄 47.21

47.21

答。非一非異。論云。本識中親生自果。功能差別。此與本識。及所生果。不一不異。體用因果。理應爾故。釋云。本識是體。種子是用。種子是因。所生是果。此之二法。理應如是不一不異。本識望種。於出體中。攝相歸性。故皆無記。種從現行。望於本識。相用別論。故通三性。若即是一。不可說為有因果法。有體有法。若一向異。應穀麥等能生豆等。以許因果一向異故。不爾。法滅應方有用。以許體用一向異故。用體相似。氣勢必同。因果相似。功能狀貌可相隨順。非一向異。

Answer: They are neither the same nor different. The treatise states: 'The differentiation of capacities directly producing their own fruits within the root consciousness—these, with the root consciousness and the produced fruits, are neither the same nor different; for substance and function, cause and effect, are logically so.' The commentary explains: The root consciousness is the substance, and the seeds are the function; the seeds are the cause, and what is produced is the effect. These two dharmas should logically be thus: neither the same nor different. When looking from the root consciousness toward the seeds, in identifying the substance, characteristics are subsumed into the nature; hence they are all indeterminate (avyākṛta). When looking from the seeds arising from actual manifestation toward the root consciousness, their characteristics and functions are discussed separately; hence they encompass the three natures. If they were strictly the same, one could not speak of them as having dharmas of cause and effect, or as having substance and dharma. If they were completely different, grains and wheat would be able to produce beans and the like, because cause and effect would be accepted as completely different. Were it not so, only when a dharma perishes would there be function, because substance and function would be accepted as completely different. The function and substance resemble each other, and their force must be identical; cause and effect resemble each other, and their capacities and appearances can conform to one another; they are not completely different.