瑜伽論記 14.390

14.390

若謂火等是滅壞因，不應道理等者，景云：如外人救言：現見如法生必待因緣，因緣不具法不得生，滅若待因因若不具法應不滅為有此過法滅無因，此義不然，現見火等壞滅於薪，豈非火等與滅為因耶？云何論主法滅無因，今非此執名不應理。

Regarding 'if it is said that fire and the like are causes of destruction and cessation, this is not reasonable, etc.': Jing says: As an opponent saves his position by saying: 'We visibly see that the arising of a phenomenon definitely depends on causes and conditions; if causes and conditions are incomplete, the phenomenon cannot arise. If cessation depended on causes, and causes were incomplete, the phenomenon should not cease; to avoid this fallacy, the cessation of phenomena is without a cause.' This meaning is not so: we visibly see that fire and the like destroy and extinguish firewood; how could fire and the like not serve as the cause for cessation? Why does the author of the treatise say that the cessation of phenomena has no cause? Now, negating this clinging is termed 'not reasonable'.