俱舍論記 13.45

13.45

「則生因體至或似此非有」者，破前二計。則生下、中熟因體，應即是下、中熟滅因。如何生因即為滅因？此破或即計。或下品熟滅因生因，或中品熟滅因生因，應體相似，相無差別。既體相似，如何可說一為生因、一為滅因？此破或似計。「不應」已下，雙破兩家。即，是或即計。似，是或似計。有之言生，非有言滅，不應由即此火焰彼下、中熟有，彼下、中熟復由即此火焰非有。此破或即計。不應由或似此火焰彼下中熟有，彼下中熟復由或似此火焰非有。此破或似計。此文間雜雙破兩家，論主文巧應善思之。

[On the text,] "Then the substance of the cause of arising … or similar to this, it would not exist": This refutes the preceding two theses. Then the substance of the cause producing the lower or intermediate stage of cooking would itself be the cause of the destruction of the lower or intermediate stage of cooking. How could a cause of arising itself be a cause of destruction? This refutes the "either identical" thesis. Or, the cause of destruction and the cause of arising for the lower grade of cooking, or the cause of destruction and the cause of arising for the intermediate grade of cooking, would have similar substances and their characteristics would be undifferentiated. Since their substances are similar, how could one say that one is the cause of arising and one is the cause of destruction? This refutes the "or similar" thesis. From "it should not be" onwards, he refutes both schools together. "Identical" refers to the "either identical" thesis; "similar" refers to the "or similar" thesis. "Being" means arising; "non-being" means destruction. It should not be that by this very flame the lower and intermediate stages of cooking exist, and by this very same flame the lower and intermediate stages of cooking cease to exist. This refutes the "either identical" thesis. It should not be that by a flame similar to this the lower and intermediate stages of cooking exist, and by a flame similar to this the lower and intermediate stages of cooking cease to exist. This refutes the "or similar" thesis. This passage intertwines the refutation of both schools; the author's composition is ingenious and should be carefully reflected upon.