成唯識論演祕 6.235

6.235

按《對法》云：當知此中以自性等六種因相顯因緣義。具如彼辨，恐繁不錄。故《顯楊論》第十八中廣非有宗六因不得為因緣云：且同類因有三過失，若言同類之因名同類因，有已成過。何以故？若善等法善等體性前已成就，彼何用因？若言同類即因名同類因，是即無果，有不定過。何以故？不示其果，是誰因耶？又非決定因體同類，不相似法亦為因故。若言非同類即因，亦非同類之因，是即言名有虛設過；同類因言無有所生，浪施設故。如是於餘四因三過，如理廣說。

According to the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya: It should be known that here the meaning of hetu-pratyaya is shown by the six causal characteristics of intrinsic nature, etc. It is fully detailed as analyzed there, and not recorded here for fear of verbosity. Therefore, in the eighteenth fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā, it extensively refutes the Sarvāstivāda view that the six causes cannot be hetu-pratyaya, saying: 'First, sabhāga-hetu has three faults: If one says that the cause of the same class is called sabhāga-hetu, there is the fault of already established (sādhya-sama). Why? If wholesome and other dharmas have their wholesome and other intrinsic nature already established prior, what need have they of a cause? If one says that the same class is itself the cause and is thus called sabhāga-hetu, this means there is no fruit, and there is the fault of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). Why? If its fruit is not demonstrated, of what is it the cause? Furthermore, it is not determined that the causal substance is of the same class, since dissimilar dharmas also serve as causes. If one says it is neither that the same class is itself the cause nor that it is the cause of the same class, then the phrase has the fault of empty designation; for the words sabhāga-hetu would have nothing that they produce and would be designated in vain.' In this manner, three faults are extensively explained for the remaining four causes according to reason.