成唯識論述記 4.690

4.690

述曰：既約分位以辨緣生，名色時識即是名攝，言行緣識理定不成。若對經部，若熏若感其義皆然，初生染識非所熏故。對薩婆多，唯感名緣。彼復救言：既約分位以說緣生，初生之時識體。雖染非行所感，此時有色異熟為性。亦名識支分位說故，為行所感故說名緣於理何失。此則一切有部正救，經部兼之。無去、來故，應答彼言。

The Commentary states: Since you explain dependent origination in terms of stages, the consciousness at the time of name-and-form is subsumed under 'name'; stating that 'karmic formations condition consciousness' is definitely not established. Against the Sautrāntika, whether in terms of perfuming or inducing, the reasoning is the same in both cases, because the defiled consciousness of initial birth is not what is perfumed. Against the Sarvāstivādin, it is solely inducing that is called 'conditioning.' They rescue their position again, saying: since we explain dependent origination in terms of stages, at the time of initial birth, although the substance of consciousness is defiled and not brought about by karmic formations, at this time there is matter whose nature is retribution. Because it is explained in terms of the stage of the link of consciousness, it is brought about by karmic formations, and therefore saying it is called 'condition'—what fault is there? This is the primary defense of the Sarvāstivādins, and Sautrāntikas share it incidentally. Because they lack past and future, one should reply to them: