成唯識論述記 3.652

3.652

述曰：自下第二，其上座部於此起救，於中有三，一、總立宗；二、出所以；三、結救意，此即初也。此中亦同勝軍論師種子等法，前果後因俱時而生，彼謂因果恐有斷過，被他如先有因，時無果等難已。復以大乘假說現在之三相用不同時起，前法至生，後法未起；至住之時，後法未生；至異之時，後果方生，恐因果斷故，此之義意同此中破。又有二趣並生過故，前人等趣至異之時，後天等趣已至生故。彼言以是次生時勝，前法變異，無多力能，但名一趣，隨所當生，彼得趣名，非於前趣，故無此過者。不然，阿賴耶識分二趣故，及違此文。勝軍論師雖有此義，云立亦得，然自不遵，亦無章疏現行於世。

The Commentary states: From here down is the second [section], in which the Sthavira school raises a defense against this, within which there are three parts: first, a general formulation of the thesis; second, setting forth the rationale; third, concluding with the intent of the defense. This is the first part. This is also identical to Master Jayasena's view on seeds and other dharmas, where the prior effect and subsequent cause arise simultaneously. They considered that cause and effect might suffer from the fault of interruption, after having been refuted by others with objections such as "when the cause exists earlier, the effect does not exist at that time." Furthermore, because in the Mahāyāna the three marks of the present are conventionally designated as not arising at the same time—when the prior dharma reaches arising, the subsequent dharma has not yet arisen; when it reaches abiding, the subsequent dharma has not yet arisen; when it reaches decay, only then does the subsequent effect arise—for fear that cause and effect would be interrupted, the intent of their doctrine is identical to what is refuted here. Moreover, it would have the fault of two destinies arising simultaneously, because when the destiny of the prior human, etc., reaches decay, the destiny of the subsequent deva, etc., would have already reached arising. They say: "Because the moment of the next arising is predominant, while the prior dharma undergoing decay has no great capacity, it is designated as only one destiny; according to that into which one is about to be born, one receives the name of that destiny, not the prior destiny, and hence there is no such fault." This is not so, because the ālayavijñāna would be divided into two destinies, and it contradicts this text. Although Master Jayasena held this doctrine, saying that establishing it was also acceptable, he did not follow it himself, nor are there any commentaries of his circulating in the world.