俱舍論記 13.104

13.104

「無表論者至寧有無表」者，經部反難。說常有宗無表論者所立無表依表而生，於無依福但起敬心。既無表業，寧有無表？《顯宗》十八救云「誰言此中無有表業？理應有故。謂聞某處、某方邑中現有如來或弟子住，生歡喜故福常增者，彼必應有增上信心遙向彼方敬申禮讚，起福表業及福無表，而自莊嚴希親奉覲，故依無表說福業常增。」《正理》意同《顯宗》。准顯宗等救，無依業必依表生，如何此論言無表業？俱舍師破云：汝宗無依不從表生，難所逼故，言從表起。遙申禮讚可寄表起，但起信心從何表生？又解：經部以己宗難無表論者，於無依福以理而言，既無表業，寧有無表？又解：說常有宗無依福業，或有計從表生、或有計不從表起。我今難彼非表生者，非難從表生者，何須救來？

"Proponents of avijñapti ... how could there be avijñapti?" is the Sautrāntika's counter-objection. For the proponents of avijñapti in the school that asserts permanent existence, the avijñapti they establish arises dependent on vijñapti; in supportless merit, one merely gives rise to a mind of reverence. Since there is no vijñapti-karma, how could there be avijñapti? The eighteenth fascicle of the Xianzong rescues this, saying: 'Who says there is no vijñapti-karma here? In principle, there must be. That is, hearing that in a certain place, country, or town there currently resides a Tathāgata or a disciple, one gives rise to joy, causing merit to constantly increase; they must surely have superior faith, paying homage and praise from afar toward that direction, generating meritorious vijñapti-karma and meritorious avijñapti, thereby adorning themselves with the hope of seeing them in person. Therefore, based on avijñapti, it is said that meritorious karma constantly increases.' The Nyāyānusāra's intention is the same as that of the Xianzong. According to the defense of the Xianzong and others, supportless karma must arise dependent on vijñapti; why then does this treatise say there is no vijñapti-karma? The Kośa master refutes this, saying: In your school, supportless [merit] does not arise from vijñapti; pressed by this objection, you claim it arises from vijñapti. Paying homage and praise from afar could be provisionally based on vijñapti, but from what vijñapti does merely generating a mind of faith arise? Another explanation: the Sautrāntika challenges the proponents of avijñapti according to their own system: in terms of supportless merit, logically speaking, since there is no vijñapti-karma, how could there be avijñapti? Another explanation: among the proponents of the school that asserts permanent existence, regarding supportless meritorious karma, some maintain that it arises from vijñapti, while others maintain that it does not arise from vijñapti. I am now objecting to those who hold it does not arise from vijñapti, not to those who hold it arises from vijñapti; what need was there to offer a defense?