瑜伽論記 18.146

18.146

第二、約說因中，景云：外道復立諸是樹木但有命時必定增長，後無命時即不增長。故復破云：諸無命物無有增長，為有說因？為無說因者，為有比量因緣說無命物無增長耶？為無說因耶？若有說因；此說因緣不可得故者，無同法喻。如說一切外物諸無命者皆不增長，以無彼命為生因故，無同法喻。故言此說因緣不可得故。若無說因；無因而必爾者，不應道理者，立比量不成，而說無命之物不增定等爾者，不應道理。

Second, regarding the stated reason: Jing says: The non-Buddhists further posit that all trees definitively grow only when they have a life-principle, and subsequently do not grow when they have no life-principle. Therefore it refutes them again, saying: "Does the fact that lifeless things do not grow have a stated reason or lack a stated reason?": Is there an inferential reason for stating that lifeless things do not grow, or is there no stated reason? Regarding "If there is a stated reason, this stated reason and condition is unobtainable": there is no homologous example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta). For instance, if one says that all external, lifeless things do not grow because they lack that life-principle as a cause of generation, there is no homologous example. Therefore it says "this stated reason and condition is unobtainable." Regarding "If there is no stated reason, for it to be necessarily so without a cause is unreasonable": the formulation of an inference is unestablished; to state that lifeless things definitively do not grow, and so forth, is unreasonable.