成唯識論演祕 3.61

3.61

Answer: It is precisely because the subsequent fruit is non-existent that it is said to arise from the cause. Objection: If the substance of the cause has perished while its function remains permanently, one could say the fruit arises from the cause's function; but when the substance of the cause perishes its function perishes along with it, so a subsequent fruit lacking a cause cannot arise. A commentary explains: As stated below, observing that present dharmas have the function of inducing the subsequent, the future fruit is conventionally established in counterpart to speak of the present cause; therefore the present cause can induce the subsequent fruit. Refutation: Not so. In this definition of seed, where prior and posterior produce one another, both cause and fruit are real. That passage speaks of the active consciousness as conventionally designated cause and fruit; one should not use that to prove this doctrine.