成唯識論了義燈 4.95

4.95

《論》：「然《攝大乘》說：色亦容有等無間緣者，是『縱奪言』」者。釋彼論第三云：謂經部師作如是執，色心無間生者。謂諸色、心前後次第，相續而生，是諸法種子者，是諸有為能生因性，謂彼執言，從前剎那色、後剎那色，無間而生。從前剎那心、後剎那心及相應法無間而生（已上論文），破已下結云。但應容有等無間緣及增上緣，無有因緣，今指此文，是縱經師有等無間，奪彼前後為因緣義。若爾，何故《攝論》第一云：又經部師不說唯色名為心法，等無間緣。此所無故，心及心法，四緣定故，釋文如疏。

Regarding the Śāstra's statement: "However, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that form may also have the equal-immediate condition, which is 'a statement of concession and refutation'": Explaining fascicle three of that treatise, it says: The Sautrāntikas hold such an attachment, that form and mind arise immediately. They claim that the sequential succession of various forms and minds arises continuously, and that being the seeds of all phenomena, they are the productive causal nature of all conditioned phenomena; that is, they hold that from the form of the preceding kṣaṇa, the form of the subsequent kṣaṇa arises immediately; and from the mind of the preceding kṣaṇa, the mind and associated dharmas of the subsequent kṣaṇa arise immediately (the above is the text of the śāstra). After refuting this, it concludes below: It should only be granted that they have the equal-immediate condition and the sovereign condition, but they have no causal condition. Now, pointing to this text, it is a concession to the Sautrāntika master that there is an equal-immediate [condition], while refuting his position that the preceding and subsequent serve as a causal condition. If so, why does the first fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say: "Furthermore, the Sautrāntikas do not say that form alone is called a mental dharma, an equal-immediate condition. Because this is absent, the mind and mental dharmas definitely have four conditions"? The explanation of the text is as given in the commentary.