成唯識論演祕 2.291

2.291

問：色、心、心所為即是因，為不爾耶？設爾何過？二俱有失。若云因者，因但取彼不異色、心作用之義，豈取彼體又因是彼有法之義？若實色、心依假得等，豈非倒乎？若非因者，成非實宗，實色、心等豈非異喻？因於彼轉，何非不定？色、心亦非異色、心等有作用故。

Question: Are form, mind, and mental factors the reason (hetu) itself, or are they not? If so, what fault is there? Either way, there is a fault. If one says they are the reason, the reason only takes the meaning of their functions not being distinct from form and mind; how could it take their entities? Furthermore, the reason is the attribute of the subject (dharmin). If real form and mind were to rely on nominal acquisition and so forth, would that not be an inversion? If they are not the reason, then in establishing the thesis of non-reality, would real form and mind not be dissimilar instances (vipakṣa)? Since the reason is present in them, why is it not inconclusive? For form and mind also do not have functions distinct from form, mind, and so forth.