成唯識論演祕 6.303

6.303

詳曰：前勝，何所以者？下文別問四緣依處攝因等故，故下論云：所說四緣依何處立？復如何攝十因、二因。又前問已，即舉依處而辨十因以答其問，不言四緣，以此而言故前義勝。若取後者，後文更問，一何繁重；前文不答，何乃闕乎。今又釋云：此言雙此四緣、十因，云何四緣及以十因俱依依處？下答先辨十因依處，後明緣依，明緣依中，以隔十因文勢遠故，故更問起，亦不相違。

We examine: The former is superior. Why? Because the subsequent text separately asks about the bases of the four conditions subsuming the causes, and so on; hence the subsequent Treatise says: "Based on what bases are the stated four conditions established? Further, how do they subsume the ten causes and two causes?" Furthermore, having asked the question earlier, it immediately adduces the bases to explain the ten causes in order to answer that question, without mentioning the four conditions. Speaking from this, the former opinion is superior. If one accepts the latter, the subsequent text asking again would be excessively redundant; while if the earlier text did not answer it, why would it be deficient? Now another explanation states: The word "these" refers to both the four conditions and the ten causes: how do both the four conditions and the ten causes rely on the bases? The subsequent answer first explains the bases of the ten causes, and later clarifies what the conditions rely on. In clarifying what the conditions rely on, because it is separated by the ten causes and the flow of the text is distant, it raises the question again; thus there is also no contradiction.