俱舍論疏 6.59

6.59

論「此應詳辨至用芽為因」，經部對也。於中有二：一破現燈、明因不定；二破影用芽為因。焰之與明，俱由前念與生因合，有於後念焰、明俱起，非是同時之焰與明為因，理如前說。二破芽為影因者，餘東邊物障於光明而西邊有影現，既障光處、別生影處殊，如何說芽與影為因？

On the Śāstra's statement: "This should be examined carefully... having the sprout as cause": this is the Sautrāntika's rejoinder. In it there are two parts: first, refuting that the observed lamp and illumination serve as an undetermined cause; second, refuting that the shadow takes the sprout as its cause. Both flame and illumination arise simultaneously in the subsequent moment because their preceding moment combined with a generative cause; it is not that the flame of the same moment serves as the cause for the illumination, the principle of which is as stated before. As for the second, refuting that the sprout is the cause of the shadow: another object on the eastern side obstructs the light while a shadow appears on the western side; since the locus where the light is obstructed and the locus where the distinct shadow arises are different, how can one say that the sprout serves as the cause for the shadow?