成唯識論述記 3.539

3.539

述曰：成業論中廣破此義。量云：別能持中六種種子，應不共生一果；因緣性故；如六能熏，能熏雖有六現，不是因緣共生一果種。若爾，《雜集》第八卷如何通？彼許多因生一果故，如五無間業受一期報故。《成業論》中自解此妨，可許多緣生一果體，不許多因能生一果，因緣辨體，無此事故。前立量中，已有因緣、因果言故。十、外人轉言，熏種雖多，生果之時但從一種。

The Commentary states: The Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa extensively refutes this meaning. The syllogism is: The six seeds in distinct sustainers should not together produce a single fruit; because they are of the nature of a primary cause (hetu-pratyaya); like the six perfumers. Although the perfumers have six samudācāras, they are not primary causes together producing a single fruit seed. If so, how can the eighth fascicle of the Samuccaya be reconciled? For that [text] allows that many causes produce a single fruit, just as the five acts of immediate retribution experience a single lifetime's fruition. The Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa itself resolves this objection: one may allow that many conditions produce a single fruition-entity, but one does not allow that many primary causes can produce a single fruit; when distinguishing entities by primary cause, there is no such thing. In the earlier stated syllogism, the expressions 'primary cause' and 'cause and effect' were already included. Tenth, the opponent shifts his statement: Although the perfumed seeds are many, when generating the fruit, it arises from only one [seed].