Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Volume 34 (39)

Original text: 由彼因缘。于今自体差别生起。不应自在变化为因。何以故。若说自在变化为因能生诸行。此所生行。为唯用彼自在为缘。为待余缘。如是自在方能变化。若唯用彼自在为缘。是则诸行与彼自在俱应本有。何须更生。

Explanation: Due to various causes and conditions, the different self-natures of the various volitional formations now manifest. The arising of these different self-natures of the volitional formations should not have Īśvara's transformation as its cause. Why is this said? If it is claimed that Īśvara's transformation is the cause that gives rise to the various volitional formations, then do these volitional formations thus produced take only that Īśvara as their condition, or do they await other conditions before such Īśvara can bring about transformation? If they take only that Īśvara as their condition, then the volitional formations and that Īśvara should both have existed from the very beginning—so why would they need to arise anew?

Original text: 若言先有自在体性。然后行生。是则诸行。不唯自在为缘生起。若言自在随其所欲功用。祈愿方能造化。是故亦用欲为因缘。非唯自在。若尔此欲为有因耶。为无因耶。若言有因。即用自在以为因者。此则同前所说过失。不应道理。若言此欲更有余因。是则如欲功用祈愿。离自在外余法为因。如是亦应一切诸行。皆用余法以为其因。何须妄计无用自在。

Explanation: If it is said that the self-nature of Īśvara existed first, and only then the volitional formations arose, then these volitional formations did not arise with Īśvara alone as their condition. If it is said that Īśvara, in accordance with his desires, can only create and transform the volitional formations through the function of supplication and vows, then the volitional formations are also born with desire as their cause and condition, not with Īśvara alone as their condition. If this is so, does this desire arise and function with a cause, or without a cause? If it is said to have a cause, and that Īśvara is taken as its cause, then this incurs the same fault as stated before, and such a claim does not accord with reason. If it is said that this desire has yet other causes, then, like the function of desire realized through supplication and vows, there are other dharmas besides Īśvara that serve as the causes of arising. If this is so, then all the various volitional formations should likewise take other dharmas as their causes of arising—so why would one falsely cling to the notion that the useless Īśvara is the cause?