成唯識論了義燈 7.182

7.182

又解：但緣真見所緣，言「苦法智」者，舉此忍因。故下釋，乃至云「如理作意所攝智增上力故，於自相續苦諦中現證彼真如出世間惠，正見體生」，即從因為名。若依《俱舍》第二十三，從果為名，故彼論云「此能生法智，是法智因，得法智忍名，如華果樹。」此從因名，或就果稱，西明義意。今謂：《俱舍》釋後十六，可從果名。今此總緣，與上、下別。又《俱舍》釋亦不盡理。苦法智是果，忍者是因，今既雙舉，故因果合因。苦法智是因，忍者是果，因果雙言，故合為因。若唯從因，應如似悔從因立名，名為惡作，不云惡作悔。今既因果合舉，明不唯因，即依主釋。通依及於，於即境聲，義如前顯。

Another explanation: It only takes the cognitive object of the true seeing as its cognitive object; stating "dharma-wisdom regarding duḥkha" cites the cause of this forbearance. Hence the subsequent commentary explains, down to saying: "due to the predominant power of the wisdom subsumed by appropriate mental application (yoniso-manaskāra), the supramundane wisdom of immediately realizing that tathatā within the truth of duḥkha in one's own continuum arises as the essence of right view"—this is naming [the forbearance] from its cause. If relying on the Abhidharmakośa, fascicle twenty-three, it is named from its fruit; thus that treatise states: "This is able to produce dharma-wisdom; being the cause of dharma-wisdom, it receives the name 'forbearance of dharma-wisdom', just like a flower-fruit tree." This being named from the cause or designated with respect to the fruit was Ximing's intentional interpretation. I now say: The Abhidharmakośa's explanation of the subsequent sixteen [minds] may be named from the fruit. Here, this comprehensive object-taking is different from the upper and lower [realms]. Furthermore, the explanation of the Abhidharmakośa also does not exhaust the principle. The dharma-wisdom regarding duḥkha is the fruit, and forbearance is the cause; since both are cited now, cause and fruit combine into the cause. If the dharma-wisdom regarding duḥkha is the cause and forbearance is the fruit, both cause and fruit are stated, and thus they combine into the cause. If it were solely from the cause, it would be named from the cause like regret, being named bad action (kaukṛtya) and not called bad-action regret. Since both cause and fruit are cited now, it is clear that it is not solely the cause; that is, it is a tatpuruṣa compound. It applies to both the possessive and the locative; the locative is the locative case of the cognitive object, the meaning of which was revealed previously.