瑜伽師地論略纂 4.162

4.162

八、「生者非有故」者，謂非自作、他作。若有自我作、大梵等他作，便有生者故。　「緣無作用故」者，謂非俱作。　「緣力所生故」者，謂亦非無因生。《對法》云：諸法不自生，亦不從他生，亦不從共生，非不從二生。雖無作用緣，而有功能緣可得故。　非自生，破我作。　非他生，破大自在天等不平等因生。　非共生，破薩婆多等作用義。　非無因生者，破無因論。彼云：若緣起理非自非他遣雙句者，猶為甚深，況總亡四句，是故緣起最極甚深。《中論》云：諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因。彼解云：自性空故，不自生；緣性空故，非他生；自他空故，不共生。法若有體，可說有因、無因，法性既空，何得說有有因、無因？前三句破有因緣，第四句破無因緣。今者此宗不破因緣功能而生，但破作用自、他等生及無因生，與彼不同。

8. Regarding "because there is no producer": this means it is neither produced by oneself nor produced by another. For if there were a self that produces it, or another such as Mahābrahmā who produces it, there would be a producer. Regarding "because conditions are devoid of functioning": this means it is not produced by both together. Regarding "because it is produced through the power of conditions": this means it is also not produced without a cause. The Abhidharma[-samuccaya] states: "Dharmas are not born from themselves, nor are they born from another, nor are they born from both, nor are they not born from the two. For although conditions are devoid of functioning, conditions possessing efficacy are nonetheless attainable." Not being born from self refutes production by an ātman. Not being born from another refutes production by an unequal cause such as Maheśvara. Not being born from both refutes the Sarvāstivādin notion of functioning. Not being born without a cause refutes the doctrine of causelessness. That [treatise] says: "If the principle of dependent origination dispels the two positions of 'neither self nor other,' it is already profound; how much more so when all four positions are obliterated! Therefore, dependent origination is the most profoundly deep." The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "Dharmas are not born from themselves, nor are they born from another, nor from both, nor without a cause." Their explanation states: Because self-nature is empty, it is not born from self; because the nature of conditions is empty, it is not born from another; because both self and other are empty, it is not born from both. If a dharma possessed an essence, one could speak of it having a cause or lacking a cause; but since the nature of dharmas is empty, how could one speak of having a cause or lacking a cause? The first three phrases refute [production through] causes and conditions, and the fourth phrase refutes [production] without causes and conditions. Now, this school does not refute production through the efficacy of causes and conditions; it only refutes production by self, other, and so forth through [real] functioning, as well as causeless production. Thus, it differs from that [view].