俱舍論記 7.59

7.59

「論曰至餘一切法」者，釋初句。因緣說五，據總相說。若別分別，有不具者。非異熟，無異熟因。若非染污，無遍行因。初生無漏，無同類因，相應、俱有可言皆有。謂前無間已生心、心所法是等無間緣，非無學後心、心所法為等無間緣。餘二緣可知。總相而言，具四緣生。若別分別，亦有不具。故《婆沙》一百三十六，意說心、心所四緣生。此言生者，起未已滅，總名生故。謂一緣唯於生時作用，一緣唯於滅時作用，二緣通於二時作用，故合說四。若准此說，據緣作用，果或生時。或於滅時非具四緣，合說方具。若依《正理》二十，果法生時，所緣及相應、俱有亦有功力。故彼論云「豈不一緣、二因作用，非於彼法生時即有。如何心等四緣故生？如何因緣具五因性？雖法滅位作用方成，而法生時非無功力，離此彼法必不生故。以心、心所必杖所緣及託二因方得生故。若法與彼法為所緣或因，無暫時非，本論說故。若作俱舍破言：為所緣或為因者，不言法生時能起功力。設起功能，此中辨用不應說故。

"The treatise says... up to ...all other dharmas" explains the first line. When it states that the cause-condition (hetu-pratyaya) has five [causes], it speaks in terms of the general characteristics. If analyzed specifically, there are cases where they are not complete. What is not vipāka lacks the vipāka cause. If not defiled, it lacks the sarvatraga cause. Newly arisen uncontaminated [dharmas] lack the sabhāga cause; but the saṃprayuktaka and sahabhū [causes] can be said to be always present. That is, the immediately preceding, already arisen mind and mental dharmas are the equal-and-immediate condition, while the final mind and mental dharmas of an aśaikṣa are not an equal-and-immediate condition. The remaining two conditions are understood. Generally speaking, they arise complete with the four conditions. If analyzed specifically, there are also cases where they are incomplete. Hence fascicle 136 of the Mahāvibhāṣā intends to say that mind and mental factors arise from four conditions. The word "arise" here means that having arisen, they have not yet ceased, which is collectively called "arising." That is, one condition functions only at the time of arising, one condition functions only at the time of cessation, and two conditions function throughout both times; therefore, combined, they are said to be four. According to this explanation, based on the function of the conditions, the effect at the time of arising or at the time of cessation does not possess the full four conditions; only when combined are they complete. But according to fascicle 20 of the Nyāyānusāra, when the effect-dharma arises, the objective condition, as well as the saṃprayuktaka and sahabhū causes, also possess causal efficacy. Hence that treatise says: "Is it not that the activity of one condition and two causes does not exist precisely when that dharma arises? How then do the mind and so forth arise from four conditions? How does the cause-condition possess the nature of five causes? Although their activity is only accomplished at the phase of the dharma's cessation, they are not without efficacy at the time the dharma arises, for without them that dharma would definitely not arise. Because mind and mental factors necessarily depend on an object and rely on the two causes before they can arise. If a dharma serves as an object or a cause for that dharma, there is no moment when it is not, as stated in the fundamental treatise." If one refutes this in the manner of the Kośa: being an object or being a cause does not mean that it can initiate efficacy at the time the dharma arises. Even if it initiated efficacy, it should not be mentioned here when distinguishing functions.