瑜伽論記 2.167

2.167

有障無障者，謂果不顯時，為有障體生故；為障而果不顯，為無障體而為障彼，故果不顯。難無障體云：無體應不能為障，以無體故，如石女；果法應本已顯，無障緣故，如汝因法。若有障緣，屬果之因，何故不障？同是有故者，謂果體有有障能障，因體不無障亦應有，俱是有故。量云：汝有體因亦應被障，以體有故，如所障果，如水為果，闇能障之，盆是水因闇亦能障。翻覆此量，準之可知。設若救言障緣亦能障於因者，亦應顯因，何故但言從緣顯果？量云：汝宗之因，應從緣顯，許所障故，猶如果法，或汝果法，不從緣顯，許有障故，猶如因法。

'Having obstruction or lacking obstruction': when the effect is unmanifest, does an obstructing entity arise so as to obstruct it and make the effect unmanifest, or does it lack an obstructing entity yet obstruct it so that the effect is unmanifest? Objecting to lacking an obstructing entity, we say: What lacks entity should be unable to obstruct, because it lacks entity, like the son of a barren woman; and the effect should already be manifest originally, because it lacks obstructing conditions, like your cause. 'If there are obstructing conditions, why do they not obstruct the cause belonging to the effect, since both alike exist?': this means that if the entity of the effect exists and there is an obstruction that can obstruct it, since the entity of the cause is not non-existent, the obstruction should also exist, because both alike exist. The inference is: Your cause, having an entity, should also be obstructed, because its entity exists, like the obstructed effect; just as water is an effect and darkness can obstruct it, a basin is the cause of water and darkness can also obstruct it. Reversing this inference, one can know it by analogy. Even if they should rescue [their thesis] by saying that obstructing conditions can also obstruct the cause, then they should also manifest the cause; why only say that the effect is manifested through conditions? The inference is: The cause in your school should be manifested through conditions, because you accept that it is obstructed, like the effect; or, your effect is not manifested through conditions, because you accept that it has obstruction, like the cause.