瑜伽師地論略纂 12.51

12.51

論云「若言一者，計生實有，即為唐捐；言別有生是實物有，不應道理」者，此破小生。小生若與大生一者，計有大生是實物有，即為唐捐。所以者何？大生生色法，離色別有生；小生生大生，應亦別有體。小生生大生，二生即言一；大生生色法，與生亦是一。故言別有生是實物有，即為唐捐，不應道理。

The śāstra states: "If one says they are identical, positing arising as a real entity becomes pointless; saying there is a separate arising that is a substantial entity is unreasonable." This refutes secondary arising. If secondary arising were identical with primary arising, positing primary arising as a real entity would be pointless. Why is this? Primary arising produces material phenomena, existing separately from form; secondary arising produces primary arising, and should also have a separate entity. If secondary arising produces primary arising and the two arisings are said to be one, then primary arising produces material phenomena and would also be one with arising. Therefore, saying that a separate arising exists as a substantial entity is pointless and unreasonable.