俱舍論疏 6.294

6.294

論「諸有為法至由增上果」，第五釋增上果相也。「除前已生」者，謂前已生，望後已生未生，非增上果。果據取故不在因前，因但不障故通果後。問：六因、五果一體義分。五類不同，因何體性各別？答：六因、五果就用建立，用別體同。五類義門據體以分，由斯體別。如異熟位雖即等流，從別立名不據通稱。因果不爾，即一兼餘，如一邪見是相應因亦餘五因，雖具六因而無六體。六用既別亦不相攝，即將因用開合為緣，由此因緣展轉相攝，五果亦爾。若就法體具因多少，亦得相對明其句數。如遍行因對同類因四句分別，《正理》具述，意同不錄。

The Śāstra states: "All conditioned dharmas [...] due to predominant fruition." This is the fifth section, explaining the characteristic of the predominant fruition. "Excluding those already produced" means that what has already been produced, in relation to what has been produced later or has not yet been produced, is not a predominant fruition. A fruition, being defined by its being grasped, cannot precede the cause; a cause, merely not obstructing, can extend after the fruition. Question: The six causes and five fruitions are distinct meanings within a single entity. The five categories are different; why are their entities distinct? Answer: The six causes and five fruitions are established with respect to function; functions differ, but the entity is the same. The doctrinal categories of the five kinds are divided according to entity, and therefore their entities are distinct. For instance, although the state of ripening is an outflow, it takes its name from its distinctive aspect and does not rely on the common designation. With causes and conditions, it is not like this: one includes the others. For example, a single false view is an associated cause and also the remaining five causes; although it possesses the six causes, it does not have six separate entities. Since the six functions are distinct, they also do not subsume one another; taking the functions of the causes and opening or combining them makes conditions (pratyaya), and by this, causes and conditions mutually subsume one another. The five fruitions are also like this. If examined in terms of how many causes a dharma's entity possesses, their four alternatives may also be clarified in mutual relation. For instance, the four alternatives of the all-pervading cause versus the cause of similar kind are fully set forth in the *Nyāyānusāra*; the meaning being the same, it is not recorded here.