注大乘入楞伽經 4.39

4.39

Saying that when a son is not yet born one cannot be called a father—this single analogy refutes both views. If cause and fruit arise suddenly at the same time, then like father and son sharing an identical body, superior and inferior could not be distinguished; if the cause comes first and the fruit later, then the father is earlier and the son is later, but if the son is definitely later, where does the designation 'father' come from? Rebuking them with this, both views are entirely destroyed. 'Father' is an analogy for the cause; 'son' is an analogy for the fruit. It is also said that just as without a father one cannot be called a son, because the prior part has already ceased, the subsequent part cannot receive the designation of sequential order.