成唯識論了義燈 3.74

3.74

《論》：設名因緣，應知假說。本疏但會《雜集》第四，說十二緣皆名因緣，應知假說。有非因故。西明釋云：會彼六因。《要集》云：勝。今謂不爾。《顯揚論》中，具破五因，存異熟因。無性許五，依異門說，以影互明故，此不會，但會緣起。又且會緣起，略不舉六因。若言六中，有非因緣，不會故劣。亦十二支，有非因緣，不會亦劣。六因餘有會，緣起未有會，本疏會未會，故本疏為勝。此難他語，據實疏意，舉此例餘。餘但會六因，不例餘者失。

The Treatise says: 'Even if called causal condition (hetupratyaya), it should be known as a figurative designation.' The basic commentary only reconciles the fourth fascicle of the Samuccaya, which states that the twelve conditions are all called causal conditions, explaining that this should be known as a figurative designation, because some are not causes. Ximing's explanation says: 'It reconciles the six causes.' The Yaoji says this is superior. Now I say this is not so. In the Prakaraṇāryavācā, it completely refutes five causes and retains only the fruition cause (vipākahetu). Asvabhāva accepts five based on an alternative method of exposition, by way of mutual implicit indication. Therefore, it does not reconcile them here; it only reconciles conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda). Furthermore, it is provisionally reconciling conditioned arising, briefly omitting the six causes. If one says that among the six causes some are not causal conditions and failing to reconcile them makes it inferior, then likewise among the twelve links some are not causal conditions, so failing to reconcile them would also be inferior. The six causes have been reconciled elsewhere, whereas conditioned arising had not yet been reconciled; the basic commentary reconciled what had not been reconciled, and therefore the basic commentary is superior. This refutes the other's statement; according to the actual intention of the commentary, it cites this to exemplify the rest. For the other to merely reconcile the six causes and fail to exemplify the rest is a mistake.