瑜伽師地論略纂 3.8

3.8

The specific refutation is divided into three: first, a general interrogation; second, specific challenges; and finally, the conclusion. The specific challenges have two parts: first, presenting four specific rationales; and second, revealing five characteristics to show the correct doctrine. 1. The rationale of non-difference. "Characteristic" means substance. If cause and effect were not different, there should not be two kinds of determinate distinctions. A formal inference (prayogavākya) should be formulated: "Your effect's substance should be non-determinate; because the characteristic of the effect is identical to the characteristic of the cause; just like the characteristic of the cause." The characteristic of the cause is likewise: they hold that the substance is one, yet the characteristics are different. The treatise has the thesis (pratijñā) and reason (hetu), so an example (dṛṣṭānta) is now added. From "if there were different characteristics" downward, an alternative refutation is posited. "If it has the characteristic of not yet arisen, then within the cause, the effect has not yet arisen, yet to say that it exists is illogical": the effect within the cause has not yet arisen in substance, so how could it be said to exist? The inference states: "Your effect should not be said to exist within the cause; because it has the characteristic of not yet arisen; like a rabbit's horn and so forth." "If it has the characteristic of already arisen, then the substance of the effect has already arisen, and to arise again from the cause is illogical": the inference states: "The already-arisen effect previously existing in the cause should not arise from the cause again; because its substance has already arisen; like an already-arisen effect." Alternatively, the word "arise" carries the meaning of "having substance," which is precisely their fundamental thesis.