瑜伽論記 13.60

13.60

其初因意者，諸小乘等中不立本識，如經部師以六識持身，今意非此，謂從先業者能執持身，從現在緣生者不能執持。此約長竪，不得六識於一剎那或起異熟心，破之中，應立量云：眼等轉識非能執受（宗），現緣發故（因），如聲等起（喻）。又若有執救之云：我眼識等中亦有異熟心從先業生能執持，汝何故言眼等轉識非能執持而總遮我，今應破之，如下第三因比量。若爾下第三因應不更破，此已彼救己為破故，後既有破，明知此中但長竪相續道理破之，如前解釋，此第一因也。因言所以，即宗因等之因也，從此為名，故言五因。

The intention of the first cause is: among the various Hīnayāna schools, they do not establish a fundamental consciousness; for instance, the Sautrāntika masters take the six consciousnesses to hold the body. The present intention is not this; it means that what arises from past karma is able to appropriate and hold the body, whereas what arises from present conditions is not able to appropriate and hold it. This is explained in terms of the longitudinal continuity; it does not allow that the six consciousnesses in a single thought-moment might arise as vipāka minds. Refuting them, one should set up the formal proof (prayogavākya): The transitioning consciousnesses such as the eye [consciousness] are not capable of appropriation (thesis), because they are generated by present conditions (reason), like the arising of sounds and the like (example). Moreover, if someone holds and defends it by saying: 'Within my eye consciousness and the others there are also vipāka minds arising from past karma that are able to hold [the body]; why do you say that the transitioning consciousnesses such as the eye are not capable of holding, and broadly exclude me?' Now one should refute this, as in the inference of the third cause below. If so, one should not refute it again in the third cause below, because this defense would have already been refuted here; since there is a refutation later, we clearly know that here it is refuted only by the principle of longitudinal continuity, as explained previously; this is the first cause. The word 'cause' (因) means reason, which is the 'reason' of thesis, reason, and the like; named after this, they are called the five causes.