Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra: Volume 34 (Part 39)

Original text: Due to those causes and conditions, the distinctions of the self-nature of the elements arise in the present. The cause should not be attributed to the transformation by a self-existent being. Why? If it is said that the transformation by a self-existent being is the cause giving rise to all elements, are these arising elements produced solely by that self-existent being as the condition, or do they require other conditions as well, such that this self-existent being can then transform? If they are produced solely by the self-existent being as the condition, then both the elements and that self-existent being should have existed inherently. Since they inherently exist, why would they need to be produced again?

Explanation: Due to various causes and conditions, the distinctions of the self-nature of the various elements manifest now. The arising of these distinctions in the self-nature of the elements should not have the self-existent being's transformation as its cause. Why is this said? If it is said that the transformation by a self-existent being is the cause giving birth to the elements, then regarding the elements produced by this cause: are they produced solely with the self-existent being as the condition, or do they require other conditions for such a self-existent being to effect transformation? If they are produced solely with the self-existent being as the condition, then both the elements and that self-existent being should have existed inherently. Since they inherently exist, why would they need to be produced again?

Original text: If it is said that the self-existent nature existed first, and then the elements arose, then these elements are not produced solely with the self-existent being as the condition. If it is said that the self-existent being, according to its desires, requires its function and activity, prayer, and aspiration to create, then the elements are also born with desire as a cause and condition, not solely with the self-existent being. If so, is this desire caused or uncaused? If it is said to be caused, and the self-existent being is taken as its cause, then this entails the same fault as previously stated; it is unreasonable. If it is said that this desire has other causes, then just as desire, function, activity, prayer, and aspiration depend on causes other than the self-existent being, so too should all elements depend on other dharmas as their cause. Why then vainly adhere to the notion of a useless self-existent being?

Explanation: If it is said that the self-existent nature existed originally, and then the elements arose, then such elements are not produced solely with the self-existent being as the condition. If it is said that the self-existent being, according to its wishes, requires its function and activity, involving prayer and aspiration, to create the elements, then the elements are also born with desire as a cause and condition, not solely with the self-existent being as the condition. If this is the case, is this desire caused or uncaused when it arises and functions? If it is said to be caused, and the self-existent being is taken as its cause, then this has the same fault as what was said before; this reasoning is untenable. If it is said that the arising of this desire has other causes, then just like the function of desire, it is realized through prayer and aspiration, meaning there are other dharmas apart from the self-existent being serving as the cause for its arising. If it is like this, then all elements should rely on other dharmas as their cause for arising. Why then would one vainly adhere to the notion that the self-existent being is the cause?