成唯識論演祕 2.909

2.909

詳曰：雖有此斷理亦難憑，現望於現因緣豈立？現不親能生於現故。若言非因由有其力與因名者，現望於種何不許耶？豈現望種無有力乎？又《疏》後解因相之中，自斷三相皆通種、現，自既目擊，何事斥耶？餘多分別具如《燈》辨。

We assess: Although there is this conclusion, its principle is also difficult to rely upon. How could hetu-pratyaya be established when looking at an actual state in relation to an actual state? For an actual state cannot directly produce an actual state. If it is said that it is not a [direct] cause, but because it possesses that power it is given the name of a cause, then why not allow this when looking at an actual state in relation to seeds? Does an actual state lack power in relation to seeds? Furthermore, in the Commentary's later explanation of the causal mark, it itself determines that all three marks encompass both seeds and actual states. Having seen this with one's own eyes, why criticize it? The remaining multiple distinctions are fully explained in the Deng.