成唯識論演祕 6.363

6.363

詳曰：理亦未可，當應生法彼既不生，即是無法，何得有法與無為因？若言以彼不生住等而為果者，既云與彼當應生法而為其因，何得以彼不生住等而為其果，乃果無因，因無果也？若言與彼應生法上不生住等而為因，故云與應生法為因者；若爾，因望不生住等，何名相違因？正順彼不生等故，故從疏正，文如《燈》引。

An analysis says: This principle is also not admissible. Since that phenomenon which ought to arise does not arise, it is a non-existent phenomenon; how could an existent phenomenon be a cause for a non-existent? If one says that its non-arising, non-abiding, and so forth serve as its result: since one says it acts as a cause for that phenomenon which ought to arise, how can one take its non-arising, non-abiding, and so forth as its result? That would mean the result has no cause, and the cause has no result. If one says it acts as a cause for the non-arising, non-abiding, and so forth upon that phenomenon which ought to arise, and for this reason is said to act as a cause for the phenomenon that ought to arise: if so, in relation to the non-arising, non-abiding, and so forth, how could the cause be called a 'conflicting cause'? For it directly accords with their non-arising and so forth! Therefore, one should follow the Commentary as correct, with the text as cited in the Deng.