瑜伽師地論略纂 11.50

11.50

論解十因，廣如別鈔及前第五卷解。今云「隨說因者，謂一切法，名為先故想，想為先起言說」者，謂如由先有色名故，後聞此名遂起想，取像善惡；由此取像故，遂起言說，因為色等言。又如《雜集論》第四卷云：隨說因，謂名想見。言說即用，兼見為體。此論不言，彼言見者，有何意也？由想取色像故，遂起執著，執著名見，因着故起言說。　問：若清淨因，云何名著？清淨因，見即正見，稱彼法故，雖非執著，亦名為見。彼論說者，以與想、用各別故；此論等不說者，謂於取像起執著，即一物相似於想中攝見故，所以不論。又如汎有所說，但唯有想，未必起執。彼論據合作法并起執著說，此論唯約不執者說，無違。

The treatise explains the ten causes in detail, as in the separate notes and the explanation in the previous fifth fascicle. Here it states: "The conventional-expression cause (anuvyavahāra-hetu) means that for all phenomena, names precede ideation, and ideation precedes the arising of speech." This means that because there is first a name for form (rūpa), upon subsequently hearing this name, one gives rise to ideation and grasps the image, whether good or bad; because of this grasping of an image, one thereupon gives rise to speech, taking it as the cause for speaking of form and so forth. Furthermore, as the fourth fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "The conventional-expression cause refers to names, ideation, and views." Speech is its function, while also taking views as its essence. Why does this treatise not mention it, whereas that treatise mentions views? Because ideation grasps the image of form, one thereupon gives rise to clinging; clinging is called views, and due to clinging, one gives rise to speech. Question: In the case of pure causes, how can it be called clinging? In a pure cause, view is right view; because it conforms to that dharma, although it is not clinging, it is also called view. That treatise mentions it because it is distinct from ideation and function; treatises such as this one do not mention it because, regarding the arising of clinging upon grasping an image, being a single entity similar to ideation, view is subsumed within ideation, which is why it is not discussed. Furthermore, just as in general expression there is only ideation and not necessarily the arising of clinging, that treatise speaks on the basis of conditioned phenomena arising along with clinging, whereas this treatise speaks solely with reference to non-clinging; there is no contradiction.