成唯識論演祕 6.369

6.369

亦有疏本作誰字者，今隨准誰？以為兩釋：一者意云准彼《瑜伽》言生起因，是此論中生起因也，如此論中所引文是。此論既云生起因中而有業種，明知彼論生起因中有業決然。二者意云誰謂《瑜伽》言生起因唯是因緣？疏云此因此因緣也。疏云如此文是者，釋〈菩薩地〉生起不唯因緣所以，所以者何？此論釋彼生起等因，釋中既云生起因中而有業種，明彼生起包業無疑。不爾，此論便違彼本。二釋俱得當，從多本。

There are also manuscripts of the Commentary that have the character "who" (shei). Now, depending on zhun or shei, two interpretations are formed. First, the meaning is: according to that Yogācārabhūmi, the statement "origination cause" is the origination cause in this treatise, just as the text cited in this treatise indicates. Since this treatise states that within the origination cause there are karmic seeds, it is clearly known that in that treatise the origination cause definitely contains karma. Second, the meaning is: who says that the Yogācārabhūmi's statement of "origination cause" is exclusively the direct cause (hetu-pratyaya)? The Commentary states: this cause is this direct cause. When the Commentary says "as in this text," it explains why the origination [cause] in the Bodhisattvabhūmi is not exclusively a direct cause. Why is this so? This treatise explains those origination and other causes; since the explanation states that within the origination cause there are karmic seeds, it is clear that origination undoubtedly includes karma. Otherwise, this treatise would contradict that root text. Both explanations are admissible; one should follow the majority of manuscripts.