俱舍論記 1.138

1.138

「如不許一至聲亦應爾」者，論主破。如色中不許一顯色極微二四大造，聲中亦應不許一聲二四大造。若二四大同造一聲、同得一果，應二四大展轉相望為俱有因。成過失故，理非二大同得一果為俱有因。復有別過，此聲為情、非情？若言是情，有外大造。若言非情，有內大造。有解：據緣說俱，然聲各別。此解不然，若作斯解破即不成，准破故知彼計俱聲。

"Just as it is not accepted that a single [...] sound should also be likewise": the author of the treatise refutes it. Just as among visible matter it is not accepted that a single paramāṇu of color is produced by two sets of four great elements, in sound it also should not be accepted that a single sound is produced by two sets of four great elements. If two sets of four great elements together produced a single sound and together obtained a single fruit, the two sets of four great elements would have to be mutually co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu) for one another. Since that leads to a fault, in principle two sets of great elements do not together obtain a single fruit as co-existent causes. Furthermore, there is another fault: is this sound sentient or non-sentient? If it is said to be sentient, it is produced by external great elements. If it is said to be non-sentient, it is produced by internal great elements. Some explain: it speaks of combination with respect to conditions, but the sounds are distinct. This explanation is not so; if one made this explanation, the refutation would not stand; by conforming to the refutation, we know that they posited combined sound.