成唯識論掌中樞要 1.182

1.182

「非熏令長可名因緣，勿善、惡業與異熟果為因緣故」者，若現行業望自業種令增名因，即業種亦令果種增故，應名因緣。此義可然，然非正好。初熏習位已令果種增，非已後故，非業種令果種增，但應如《疏》解。此中護法現行望本有種，無因緣義，但增長故，如何可說種子、現行互為因緣。護法既存新、舊望新熏者，正是因緣，望本有種為增上緣，不辨體故。

Regarding the statement, "It cannot be that perfuming so as to foster growth is called direct condition (hetu-pratyaya), lest wholesome and unwholesome karma would be the direct condition for the fruit of vipāka": if actualized karma causing its own karmic seeds to increase is called cause, then karmic seeds also cause fruit-seeds to increase, and therefore ought to be called hetu-pratyaya. This meaning is plausible, yet it is not the most apt. At the initial stage of perfuming, it has already caused the fruit-seeds to increase, not afterward; it is not that karmic seeds cause fruit-seeds to increase. It should simply be explained as in the Commentary. Here, in Dharmapāla's view, the actualized state in relation to originally existent seeds has no meaning of hetu-pratyaya; it is merely growth; how then could it be said that seeds and actualized states are reciprocally hetu-pratyaya? Since Dharmapāla maintains both newly perfumed and originally existent [seeds], in relation to the newly perfumed, it is precisely hetu-pratyaya; but in relation to originally existent seeds, it is an adhipati-pratyaya, because it does not generate the essence.