瑜伽論記 8.138

8.138

第二以現所受果比知過去不現見因中，云若唯用彼自在為緣，是則諸行與彼自在，俱應本有，何須更生者，此難意，若自在是本有，亦有自在時即有諸行，諸行既與自在同時，故知諸行亦是本有，若是本有即是常住不應名行，以彼義中行非本有故，他既見是難已，便更立云：自在是本有，諸行在後方生。故次論云：若言先有自在等。論主見此轉宗，便更逐難云：若行自在後方生，是則諸行非唯自在生更用別緣故，故次論云：是則諸行不唯自在為緣生起，若用自在為緣，自在有時有諸行故即俱應本有，若後諸行方生，是則由祈願故次後諸行方發。若諸行用欲祈願為因，何故唯論自在為因？故次論云：若言自在隨其所欲功用祈願等，既縱以欲為因，更須徵破，故次論云若爾此欲有因耶等。

Second, in inferring and knowing the unseen past cause by means of the currently experienced fruit, regarding [the text] "If one were to use exclusively that Īśvara as the condition, then conditioned formations and that Īśvara would both have to be fundamentally existent; why would there be any need for them to arise further?": The point of this objection is that if Īśvara is fundamentally existent, then whenever Īśvara exists, conditioned formations would also exist. Since conditioned formations would be simultaneous with Īśvara, one knows that conditioned formations would also be fundamentally existent. If they were fundamentally existent, they would be permanently abiding and should not be called "conditioned formations" (saṃskāra), for in their doctrine conditioned formations are not fundamentally existent. When the other sees this objection, they then further assert: "Īśvara is fundamentally existent, but conditioned formations arise only later." Therefore, the text of the treatise next says: "If it is said that Īśvara exists first..." and so forth. The treatise master, seeing this shift in thesis, then pursues the objection further, saying: "If formations arise only after Īśvara, then conditioned formations do not arise solely from Īśvara, but additionally employ another condition." Therefore, the treatise next says: "In that case, conditioned formations would not arise with Īśvara alone as condition. If they used Īśvara as condition, then because conditioned formations would exist whenever Īśvara exists, both would have to be fundamentally existent. If conditioned formations arose only later, then due to prayerful aspiration, conditioned formations would arise immediately thereafter. If conditioned formations use desire and prayerful aspiration as cause, why argue that Īśvara alone is the cause?" Therefore, the treatise next says: "If it is said that Īśvara, according to his desire, exertion, and prayerful aspiration..." Having conceded for the moment that desire is the cause, it must be further interrogated and refuted; therefore, the treatise next says: "If so, does this desire have a cause?" and so forth.