成唯識論演祕 1.777

1.777

詳曰：釋旨甚好，詞當疎闕，可謂白珪而猶玷矣！何所以者？無為之理為離繫果及能作因，豈即生滅？若據有為，文無簡故，他實、德、業雖有因起，他亦自許有無常者，豈不相扶？若偏難常，亦何不簡？故今應云：我有為法有因果，因果俱生滅，汝實等法有因起，實等並應非一、常。

I examine this and say: The intended meaning of the explanation is very fine, but its phrasing is quite loose and defective; it may be called 'a flawless white jade tablet that nevertheless has a blemish!' Why is this? The principle of the unconditioned serves as the fruit of disconnection and as an efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu)—how could it possibly arise and cease? If it refers to conditioned dharmas, the text makes no qualification. Although the other's substance, quality, and motion arise from causes, he himself also admits that some of them are impermanent; would this not be establishing what is already accepted (siddhasādhana)? If one objects exclusively to the eternal ones, why also is there no qualification? Therefore, one should now say: "My conditioned dharmas have causes and effects, and causes and effects both arise and cease; your dharmas such as substance arise from causes, so substance and the like should all not be one and eternal."