[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘百法明門論開宗義決](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812) › 1.14 # 大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.14 大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.14) 求此果時唯取此因等者。既求此果唯從此因不取餘故。彼果唯從此因而生不從餘生。故知因中定有果性。若言因中無果性者。則應一因生一切果。既無此果性而能生此果。亦無餘果性何不生餘果。或因一果一切因生。以於一因中本無此果性此果得生者。於一切因中亦無此果性應生此一果。因中有果其理善成。今應問彼執見者曰。因果兩相為異不異。若不異者不成因果。因果二相無差別故。因果無別果從因生。因果既同因從果起。因中有果不應道理。若異相者。因中果體為未生相為已生相。為未生相。果猶未生而說是有。不應道理。若已生相。果體已生復從因生。不應理。故知因中非先有果。然要有因待緣生果。 > Regarding "When seeking this effect, one takes only this cause, etc.": Since when seeking this effect one proceeds only from this cause and does not take others, that effect arises only from this cause and does not arise from others. Thus we know that within the cause there is definitely the nature of the effect. If one says that within the cause there is no nature of the effect, then one cause should produce all effects. Since without the nature of this effect it can produce this effect, it also lacks the nature of other effects, so why does it not produce other effects? Or one effect could be produced by all causes: since within one cause originally there was no nature of this effect and yet this effect was able to be produced, within all causes there is also no nature of this effect, so they should produce this one effect. The principle that within the cause there is the effect is well established. Now, one should ask that adherent of such a view: Are the two characteristics of cause and effect different or not different? If they are not different, cause and effect are not established, because there would be no distinction between the two characteristics of cause and effect. If cause and effect have no distinction, the effect arises from the cause, and since cause and effect are identical, the cause would arise from the effect. That within the cause there is an effect is unreasonable. If they have different characteristics: is the substance of the effect within the cause characterized as unproduced or characterized as already produced? If it is characterized as unproduced, to say that the effect already exists while still unproduced is unreasonable. If it is characterized as already produced, the substance of the effect is already produced, yet arises again from the cause, which is unreasonable. Therefore we know that within the cause there is not previously an effect; rather, there must be a cause that awaits conditions to produce an effect. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.13) - [Next: 1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.15) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812~en-mt.1.14) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.6.21) — Classical Chinese - [顯揚聖教論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.prakaranaryavacasastra*zh-xuanzang.9.8) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.14) · Pramāṇa