瑜伽師地論略纂 3.17

3.17

Regarding "If there is an obstructing condition, why does it not obstruct the cause that pertains to the effect, since both are equally existent?": this means that if the substance of the effect exists and an obstruction can obstruct it, then since the substance of the cause is also not non-existent, the obstruction should also obstruct it, for both are equally existent. The formal inference is: "The existent cause in your [system] should also be obstructed by the obstruction; because you posit that its substance is existent; just like the obstructed effect." For instance, when water is the effect, darkness can obstruct it; the jar is the cause of the water, and darkness can also obstruct it. Water and jar are both existent, and the obstruction by darkness does not differentiate between them; since neither cause nor effect is non-existent, the obstruction that obstructs them should be equal. By reversing this inference, the principle can be understood accordingly. Suppose they reply to save their position by saying: "The obstructing condition can also obstruct the cause." Then it should also manifest the cause; why do you say only that the effect is manifested from conditions? The formal inference is: "The cause in your school should be manifested from conditions; because it is obstructed by an obstruction; just like the dharma of the effect." Or: "The dharma of the effect in your [system] is not manifested from conditions; because you accept that it has an obstruction; just like the dharma of the cause."