成唯識論述記 4.688

4.688

述曰：自下雙破經部、薩婆多師。若設許行能招識故名行緣識，結生染識非行感故。經部師言：我雖無有去、來時分，行緣識生既有種子。似汝大乘現行，能招於當可生名色位識，名行緣識斯有何過？薩婆多師既有未世，設復救言：初生染識非行所招，名色位中有異熟識方名行感。雖約分位以說緣生，但感名緣於理無失。難云：

The Commentary states: Below this is a joint refutation of both the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivādin masters. Even if one concedes that karmic formations can induce consciousness and thus calls it 'karmic formations conditioning consciousness,' the defiled consciousness that links life is not brought about by karmic formations. The Sautrāntika master says: although I have no past or future time periods, since karmic formations conditioning consciousness to arise has seeds, resembling your Mahāyāna active manifestations, it can induce the consciousness in the stage of name-and-form that is to be produced in the future; what fault is there in calling this 'karmic formations conditioning consciousness'? Since the Sarvāstivādin master posits a future period, suppose he further rescues his position by saying: the defiled consciousness of initial birth is not induced by karmic formations; only when there is a retribution consciousness in the stage of name-and-form is it called 'brought about by karmic formations.' Although dependent origination is explained in terms of stages, merely taking inducing as 'conditioning' is logically faultless. One objects, saying: