成唯識論演祕 1.630

1.630

詳曰：難知！若同時見名同時者，見烟之時既不見火，何得名同？若亦見火，此即現知，何得言比？若言烟、火據體同時名同時者，禾損與霜豈異時耶？若云見烟必有大體，禾損不爾，不相例者，此亦不爾。如見禾盛名為見因，豈能生因此時有體？有不遍失。復違彼論，論云「見不同故比」者，謂見因果相屬一義，和合相違，於彼畢竟不現見境所有智生。論既自云「由相違等方有智生」，明「不同」者是非順義，同義翻此。

Examination: This is incomprehensible! If seeing simultaneously is called simultaneous, since at the time of seeing smoke one does not see fire, how can it be called identical? If one also sees the fire, this is direct perception; how could it be called inference? If one says that smoke and fire, in terms of their entities, are simultaneous and therefore called simultaneous, are the damage to the crops and the frost at different times? If it is said that seeing smoke necessarily entails the entity of fire, whereas damage to crops is not like this, so they are not comparable, this is also not correct. As in seeing lush crops being called seeing the cause, could the producing cause have an entity at this time? That incurs the fault of non-pervasiveness. Furthermore, it contradicts that treatise; the treatise says: 'Inference through seeing non-identity means seeing cause and effect belonging to one referent, whose inherence is in conflict, whereby a cognition arises regarding an object that is utterly unperceived.' Since the treatise itself says that cognition arises only through conflict and so forth, it is clear that 'non-identical' means non-concordant; the meaning of identity is the reverse of this.