瑜伽論記 2.165

2.165

言謂即因中有果論者及聲相論者作如是計者，景云：因中有果論中，有二師：第一師立因中有果從緣而生，如上所說。故先難云：果先是有復從緣生，不應正理；第二師立因中有果但從緣顯，及聲顯論師立諸法上皆有常住之聲，與所詮法合從緣顯之，今之所破。基破云：此義不然，以論云：謂即因中有果者，計故非兩師，因明亦言：如佛弟子對數論師，立聲滅壞，名能別不成。數論師計有生者，生必滅故，如何說有能別不成，故知前後同一師計。前言生者，表是有義，或設遮故，彼如是思，果先是有復從因生，不應道理者，非他所計。然非不用功為成於果等者，自申己見也。

Regarding the statement 'That is to say, those who assert an effect in the cause and those who assert the characteristics of sound make such a positing': Jing says: Among those who assert an effect in the cause, there are two masters. The first master posits that an effect exists in the cause and arises from conditions, as stated above. Therefore it was first objected: 'For an effect to exist previously and yet arise from conditions does not accord with correct principle.' The second master posits that an effect exists in the cause and is merely manifested through conditions; and the masters who assert the manifestation of sound posit that on all phenomena there is permanent sound, which, in conjunction with the phenomena expressed, is manifested through conditions; these are what is refuted now. Ji refutes this, saying: This interpretation is not correct, because the treatise says 'that is to say, those who assert an effect in the cause' make this positing, so there are not two masters. Hetuvidyā also says: 'Just as when a Buddhist disciple, in debate with a Sāṃkhya master, posits that sound is destroyed, this is called the unestablished predicate.' The Sāṃkhya masters posit that what has arising must be destroyed; how could one say there is an unestablished predicate? Thus we know that earlier and later it is the positing of one and the same master. The earlier statement of 'arising' expressed the meaning of existing, or was formulated hypothetically. Their consideration that 'for an effect to exist previously and yet arise from a cause does not accord with reason' is not what others posit. As for 'Yet it is not that they do not apply effort to accomplish the effect' and so on, this expresses their own view.