成唯識論述記 1.569

1.569

述曰：此違自宗。汝復若謂體雖遍常，以待樂欲，并及緣故，諸法不一切處及一切時生者。今汝宗言：唯大自在一法為因。復言：更待諸眾生欲及諸法緣，即多法為因，豈不便違一因生論。

The Commentary states: This contradicts their own doctrine. If you further say: 'Although his substance is omnipresent and eternal, because he depends on desires and also on conditions, dharmas are not produced in all places and at all times'—now, your school says that the single dharma of Great Maheśvara alone is the cause. Yet you say again that he further depends on the desires of sentient beings and on the conditions of dharmas; this means multiple dharmas are the cause. Does that not directly contradict your doctrine of production from a single cause?