瑜伽論記 2.161

2.161

Regarding 'if there are no distinct characteristics' and so on: if you say that the cause, milk, possesses the effect, curd, and yet you say that cause and effect are not distinct, then because they are not distinct, there would be neither cause nor effect; therefore, your clinging that the effect exists in the cause does not accord with reason. One should formulate the inference: Your entity of the effect should not be determinate, because the characteristic of the effect is identical to the cause, just like the characteristic of the cause; the characteristic of the cause is likewise, because they cling to identity of entity with difference in characteristics. Regarding 'if there are distinct characteristics' and so on: if the curd within the milk has characteristics distinct from the milk, is such an effect of curd an unarisen characteristic or an already-arisen characteristic? If it is unarisen, what is unarisen is non-existent, and to say it exists does not accord with reason; one should formulate the inference: There is no effect in the cause, because it is unarisen, like the horn of a hare. If one says it has already arisen, then the effect of curd has already arisen; why then say that milk produces curd? Therefore it does not accord with reason; one should formulate the inference: All effects do not arise from causes, because they have already arisen, just like the characteristic of the cause.