瑜伽師地論略纂 9.45

9.45

論從「如是所有變異因緣，能令諸行」下，至「非彼一切全不生起」以來，明釋伏難。伏難云：如日炙，青葉令黃，此青葉豈不由日故，令青不現？即日為青壞緣也。今釋之云：日能變青為黃，如是汝何言日為變異因緣乎？此日即後黃色生之因緣，非前青色壞之因緣。所以者何？由世人前青色滅已，現見有後黃色生，此黃與青不相似，可得此黃生是有。故知日與黃生為緣，非青滅為緣。若日炙，青壞已，後黃不生，可日與青滅為緣，滅有緣生；後黃即有生，明日與後黃生為緣，非青壞為緣，非彼一切令不可得。若青滅已，一切後法全不可得，即日與青壞為緣也。此即反解。

From "All such conditions of alteration can cause conditioned formations..." down to "...not that all of them do not arise at all," the treatise clarifies and resolves an implicit objection. The implicit objection says: "For instance, the scorching sun turns a green leaf yellow; is it not by the sun that the green is made not to appear? Thus the sun is the condition for the destruction of the green." Now it resolves this: "The sun can alter the green to yellow; how can you say that the sun is the condition of alteration in this way? This sun is the condition for the subsequent arising of the yellow color, not the condition for the destruction of the preceding green color. Why is this? Because worldly people, after the preceding green color has ceased, directly see the subsequent yellow color arise; this yellow is dissimilar to the green, and the arising of this yellow can be established as existent. Therefore we know that the sun serves as a condition for the arising of yellow, not as a condition for the ceasing of green. If, after the green was destroyed by the scorching sun, the subsequent yellow did not arise, one could say that the sun served as a condition for the ceasing of green, and that ceasing had conditioned arising; but since the subsequent yellow indeed arises, it is clear that the sun serves as a condition for the arising of the subsequent yellow, not as a condition for the destruction of the green, and not that all of them are rendered unattainable. If, after the green ceased, all subsequent dharmas were entirely unattainable, then the sun would be the condition for the destruction of the green." This is the explanation by contraposition.