俱舍論記 13.40

13.40

「彼俱非理至順違相反故」者，論主雙非二執。破前執云：夫言住無，即無有體。以無體法非成因故，故言無非因。故立量云：住無非因，以無體故，猶如兔角。破後執云：非彼勝論於一念中法與非法俱為生因、法與非法俱為滅因，以剎那剎那，法即是順、非法是違，二相反故。云何二法俱生、滅因？又《正理》云「法與非法亦非滅因，見空窟中有焰轉故（解云：空窟中熖即無損益，既無所對無法，法誰為滅因）。」

[On the text,] "Both of these are unreasonable … because they are concordant and contradictory, being mutually opposed": The author of the treatise rejects both attachments together. Refuting the former attachment, he says: Generally speaking, the "nonexistence of duration" means there is no real substance. Because a phenomenon lacking real substance cannot constitute a cause, he says "a nonexistence is not a cause." Thus he formulates a syllogism: "The nonexistence of duration is not a cause, because it lacks real substance, just like a rabbit's horn." Refuting the latter attachment, he says: In a single moment, the Vaiśeṣika cannot have dharma and adharma both serve as the cause of arising, nor can dharma and adharma both serve as the cause of destruction, because from moment to moment, dharma is concordant and adharma is contradictory, the two being mutually opposed. How could two such phenomena both be causes of arising and destruction? Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Dharma and adharma are also not causes of destruction, because a flame is observed to continue in an empty cave (explaining this: a flame in an empty cave brings neither benefit nor harm; since there is no object, there is no dharma [or adharma], so what would serve as the cause of destruction?)."