俱舍論記 11.17

11.17

「謂執有法至何理相違」者，答，出數論計。謂數論執薩埵、剌闍、答摩，有法自性常存，有餘二十三諦生，有餘二十三諦滅。又解：有餘我執等生，有餘大等滅，如是前後轉變。何理相違？如變金等成環玔等，金體不異環等。生滅自性即名有法，謂自體性有大等法故名有法。如因明論云：聲是無常，無常是法。聲是有法，有無常法故名有法。

"They assert that there is a substantive entity […] what logic does this contradict?": this answers, presenting the Sāṃkhya doctrine. Namely, the Sāṃkhyas maintain that the substantive entity of sattva, rajas, and tamas, their fundamental nature (prakṛti), exists permanently: some remaining twenty-three principles arise, and some remaining twenty-three principles perish. Another explanation is: some remaining things such as the I-principle (ahaṃkāra) arise, and some remaining things such as the Great Principle (mahat) perish, thus transforming from former to latter. What logic does this contradict? Just as gold and so forth transforms into rings, bracelets, and so forth, the substance of gold is not different from the rings and so forth. That which undergoes arising and ceasing, its fundamental nature, is called the substantive entity; that is, because its own nature possesses dharmas such as the Great Principle, it is called a substantive entity (dharmin). As stated in treatises on pramāṇa: 'Sound is impermanent'—impermanence is the property (dharma); sound is the property-bearer (dharmin), called a property-bearer because it possesses the property of impermanence.