瑜伽論記 2.165

2.165

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.