瑜伽論記 13.399

13.399

次進退徵責，即法是立量云：生離色中外無別有體，色有有故，猶如色等。不然，俱違宗過，破生因中，（泰云：）於一一行便有二生者，既有二生因，必應有二生果也，既一一行無二法生故，汝謂生相為生因能生行不應理也，（基云：）且先破小生云：小生應無有體，於大能生及所生法無為等中不可得故，或不說故等二因，如兔角等，小生既破，即破大生，汝言大生非法之生因，說是能生法故，生如小等，故彼致二生是為大過，一生尚不許有，何須二生，謂生者是小生自從緣起故，能生者是大生能生他故。

Next, examining through progressive and regressive interrogation: setting up a formal inference based directly on the dharma: 'Arising has no separate substance apart from form, because when form exists, it exists, just like form and so forth.' Otherwise, both would commit the fallacy of contradicting one's own thesis. In refuting the cause of arising, (Tai says:) 'Saying that for each and every formation there would be two arisings: since there are two causes of arising, there must be two fruits of arising; since in each formation two dharmas do not arise, your claim that the characteristic of arising is the cause of arising able to produce formations is unreasonable.' (Ji says:) 'First refuting minor arising: Minor arising should have no substance, because it is unapprehended within the major producer, the produced dharmas, the unconditioned, and so forth, or because it is not stated, these two reasons, like the horns of a hare and so forth. Minor arising having been refuted, major arising is then refuted: You claim that major arising is not the cause of arising of dharmas, because it is said to be a dharma that can produce, arising just as minor [arising] does. Therefore, positing two arisings is a great fault; when even one arising is not admitted, why need two arisings? The