成唯識論了義燈 3.74

3.74

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.