瑜伽師地論略纂 3.21

3.21

「若有顯因，果性可顯，非是因性」等者，一種有因，果性可顯、不可顯因性，不應道理。量云：汝因應顯，顯有因故，猶如果法。　或果應不顯，顯有因故，猶如於因。若彼救云：果法未顯，顯因須顯；因法不隱，何須因顯？有體是同，顯因稱有，有顯、不顯，與理相違。量云：有體因顯，亦應顯因，因顯有故，猶如顯果。

Regarding "If there is a cause of manifestation, then the nature of the effect can be manifested, but not the nature of the cause," and so forth: both equally having a cause, yet the nature of the effect being manifestable while the nature of the cause cannot be manifested, does not stand to reason. The formal inference is: "Your cause should be manifested; because its manifestation has a cause; just like the phenomenon of the effect." Or: "The effect should not be manifested; because its manifestation has a cause; just like the cause." If they reply to save their position by saying: "The phenomenon of the effect was not yet manifest, so the manifestation requires a cause to manifest it; the phenomenon of the cause is not hidden, so why would it require a cause to manifest it?": having substance is identical in both, and the cause of manifestation matches what exists; that one has manifestation and the other does not contradicts reason. The formal inference is: "When the cause having substance is manifest, it should also manifest the cause; because the cause's manifestation exists; just like manifesting the effect."