俱舍論記 7.55

7.55

「已說因緣至方取境故」者，釋第三句。前二因作用於果滅位，今等無間緣於果生位興與果用，故言相違。以彼果生時，前心、心所與其處故，果謂士用果也。前三因作用於果生位，即今所緣緣能緣果法滅位興與果用，故言相違。以心、心所要現在時方取境故，果謂增上果。又空法師說：「所緣緣在未來世，望現能緣亦有取、與。若成所緣即能取、與，說所取、與同時。此即自問答云，問：所緣亦許果前緣後得。所緣得有未來取、與，何故增上緣無？解云：所緣緣法不論自已起作用，說於緣用。他來緣已，是即緣用。所緣，未來得有取、與。增上緣，約於自已起作用說緣，是故未來則無取、與。」今謂不然。夫言取、與，據法起用。不起作用而言取、與，道理相違。又無文證未來取、與。又增上緣寬，未來尚無取、與。所緣體狹，寧得未來取、與？又諸論皆言果法望因若俱、若後。而言果前、緣後，豈不相違？故說非理。

The passage from "Having spoken of the conditioned pratyaya..." to "...for only then do they grasp their object" explains the third line [of the verse]. The former two causes exert their efficacy at the phase of the cessation of the effect, whereas now the equal-and-immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya) initiates its giving of the effect at the phase of the arising of the effect; therefore, it says they are contrary. For when that effect arises, the preceding mind and mental factors yield its place, and the effect refers to the virile effect (puruṣakāra-phala). The former three causes exert their efficacy at the phase of the arising of the effect, whereas now the objective condition (ālambana-pratyaya) initiates its giving of the effect at the phase of the cessation of the cognizing effect-dharma; therefore, it says they are contrary. Because mind and mental factors grasp their object only when they are present, the effect refers to the predominant effect (adhipati-phala). Master Kong further said: "When the objective condition is in the future, looking towards the present cognizer, there is also taking and giving [of the effect]. If it becomes an object, it can take and give [the effect]; thus it is said that what is taken and given is simultaneous. This is his own question and answer, asking: 'The objective condition is also accepted when the effect precedes and the condition follows. If the objective condition can have taking and giving in the future, why does the predominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya) lack it?' He explains: 'The dharma that is an objective condition is not spoken of as having the function of a condition by virtue of initiating an activity of its own. When another comes to cognize it, that is the function of the condition. Thus the objective condition can have taking and giving in the future. The predominant condition is spoken of as a condition in terms of initiating an activity of its own; therefore, in the future it lacks taking and giving.'" Now I say this is not so. As a rule, to speak of taking and giving is based on a dharma initiating activity. To speak of taking and giving without initiating activity is contrary to reason. Furthermore, there is no textual evidence for future taking and giving. Moreover, the predominant condition is broad, yet in the future it still lacks taking and giving; how could the objective condition, whose entity is narrow, have future taking and giving? Furthermore, all treatises state that the effect-dharma, with respect to the cause, is either simultaneous or subsequent. To speak of the effect preceding and the condition being subsequent—how is that not contradictory? Therefore, what he said is illogical.