俱舍論記 15.166

15.166

「論曰至四業相故」者，此即標宗。上來說業總有三家，或說四業、或說五業、或說八業。論主評取四業，故云是說為善。此四業中唯顯時定不定，釋經所說四種業相差別不同。故於時定分為前三，於時不定總為第四。正理論師為五業家，雖非正義，以是當部異師義，故不別破。又解：五業、四業開合為異，但言四業即是五業，故不別說。應知五業不定中二，異熟定時不定，異熟及時俱不定，即是四業中時不定攝。夫於時定異熟必定，故時定分三。若於時不定，異熟或定、不定。故五業中二不定，即是四業中時不定攝，開合為異。又《正理》不破五業，但破八業中第一句三種時定異熟不定，以離異熟無別時故。故《正理》四十云「理必無有異熟不定時分定業，時定唯是異熟定中位差別故。非離異熟別有時體，如何時定非異熟耶（已上論文）？」雖有兩解，後解為勝。

"The treatise says … the characteristics of the four karmas": this sets forth the doctrine. Above, regarding karma, there are three masters' schools in total: some teach four karmas, some teach five karmas, and some teach eight karmas. The author of the treatise accepts the four karmas by critical appraisal, and therefore says, "this statement is good." Among these four karmas, only the determination and non-determination of time are shown, explaining the differences among the characteristics of the four karmas taught in the sūtras. Therefore, regarding the determination of time, it is divided into the first three, and regarding the non-determination of time, it is combined into the fourth. The master of the Nyāyānusāra belongs to the five-karma school; although this is not the definitive doctrine, because it is an opinion of an alternative master of this school, it is not separately refuted. Another explanation: the five karmas and four karmas differ merely in being divided or combined; simply speaking of the four karmas is the five karmas, and therefore it is not separately discussed. One should know that the two [types] within the undetermined of the five karmas—whose ripening is determined but time is undetermined, and whose ripening and time are both undetermined—are subsumed under the time-undetermined among the four karmas. For when the time is determined, the ripening is necessarily determined; hence the determination of time is divided into three. If the time is undetermined, ripening may be determined or undetermined. Therefore, the two undetermined [types] in the five karmas are subsumed under the time-undetermined among the four karmas, differing only in being divided or combined. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra does not refute the five karmas, but only refutes the three kinds of the first alternative among the eight karmas—time determined but ripening undetermined—because apart from ripening there is no separate time. Thus Nyāyānusāra fascicle 40 says: "According to reason, there can never be karma whose ripening is undetermined while its time-period is determined, because the determination of time is merely a positional distinction within the determination of ripening. Since there is no separate entity of time apart from ripening, how could the time be determined while it is not [determined in] ripening? (This is the treatise text)." Although there are two explanations, the latter explanation is superior.