注大乘入楞伽經 2.178

2.178

言重復次於前文，破轉計也。謂彼轉計所生，與無種有種三緣和合而生者，龜應生毛、沙應出油；然龜本無毛、沙本無油，合亦不生，三緣體空，如何生果？汝宗則壞。違決定義者，喻斥不成，故言宗壞，以違汝決定能生之義。又於一相中妄計三緣，違我大乘決定之義。所作事業悉空無益者，事即是果，業乃是因。言因果事業，並唯妄說，都無實義。

This refers to the text that follows, refuting their shifted reckonings. That is, they shift their reckoning to say that what arises is produced from the combination of three conditions—having no seed and having a seed: then a tortoise should grow hair, and sand should yield oil. Yet a tortoise fundamentally has no hair, and sand fundamentally has no oil; even when combined, they do not produce them. The substance of the three conditions is empty, so how could they produce a fruit? Your doctrine is destroyed. "Violates the definitive principle": the analogy reproaches them as unestablished, hence it says their doctrine is destroyed because it violates your principle of definitively being able to produce. Furthermore, deludedly reckoning three conditions within a single characteristic violates the definitive principle of our Mahāyāna. "Whatever actions and undertakings they perform are entirely empty and without benefit": "undertakings" are fruits, and "actions" are causes. Saying that causal and fruitional actions and undertakings are all merely false talk and have no real meaning whatsoever.