瑜伽師地論略纂 3.11

3.11

此中有說前雨眾計法從緣生，故先難云：果先是有，復從緣生，不應正理。今從緣顯，故兩眾別。此義不然，論云：謂即因中有果者計，故非雨師。《因明》亦云：如佛弟子對數論師立聲滅壞，名能別不成。若數論師計有生者，生必滅故，如何說為能別不成？故知前後同一師計。前言生者，表是有義，或設遮故。

Here, some say that the previous Varṣagaṇyas held that phenomena arise from conditions, which is why it was first challenged: "The effect is previously existent, and to arise again from conditions is illogical." Now, [the latter hold that] it is manifested through conditions; hence the two groups are different. This view is incorrect. The treatise states: "This is held by those who assert that the effect exists in the cause"; therefore they are not non-Varṣa masters. Hetuvidyā (Buddhist Logic) also states: "Just as when a Buddhist disciple posits to a Sāṃkhya master that sound is destructible, this is called an unestablished qualificand (viśeṣaṇāsiddha)." If the Sāṃkhya masters held that there is arising, then what is born must cease; why then would it be called an unestablished qualificand? Therefore, we know that the earlier and later [doctrines] are the tenets of the same masters. The previous word "arise" expresses the meaning of "existence," or is an alternative counter-argument.