俱舍論記 28.43

28.43

「此證不成至為遮離一切」者，說一切有部總非勸思，通前引教。且初經言壽、煖合者，為約三界說，如汝異執；為約欲界說，如我所宗。理應約欲說，若通上二界不應言煖。據煖顯相，且言約欲，不言色界。若隱顯合論，煖亦通色界。通第二經云：名色與識相依住者，為約三界說，如汝異執；為約欲、色說，如我所宗。理應但約欲、色說也，若通無色不應言色。通第三經云：所說名色識為緣者，為說一切識皆為名色緣，如汝異執；為說名色生無不緣於識，如我所宗。理實亦有識唯生名不能生色。通第四經云：遮離色乃至行，識有來、去者，於四蘊中，為遮隨離一識有來、去，如汝異執；於四蘊中為遮離一切識有來、去，如我所宗。理實無色亦有離色有餘三蘊、識有來、去。言無去、來，遮離一切。

As for "This proof is unestablished... or is it to preclude leaving all of them?": the Sarvāstivādins reject this overall and urge reflection, resolving the scriptural citations above. First, regarding the first sūtra stating that life-span and heat are conjoined: Is this spoken with reference to the three realms, as your heterodox tenet holds; or is it spoken with reference to the desire realm, as our school maintains? In principle, it should be spoken with reference to the desire realm; if it applied to the two higher realms, it should not speak of heat. Based on the apparent manifestation of heat, it is stated with reference to the desire realm, without mentioning the form realm. If implicit and explicit are considered together, heat also applies to the form realm. Resolving the second sūtra, which says that name-and-form and consciousness abide depending on each other: Is this spoken with reference to the three realms, as your heterodox tenet holds; or is it spoken with reference to the desire and form realms, as our school maintains? In principle, it should only be spoken with reference to the desire and form realms; if it applied to the formless realm, it should not speak of form. Resolving the third sūtra, which says that name-and-form has consciousness as its condition: Does it mean that all consciousness serves as a condition for name-and-form, as your heterodox tenet holds; or does it mean that the arising of name-and-form never fails to have consciousness as a condition, as our school maintains? In truth, there is also consciousness that produces only name and cannot produce form. Resolving the fourth sūtra, which denies that apart from form and so forth up to formations consciousness has coming or going: Among the four skandhas, is it to preclude consciousness having coming or going apart from any single one, as your heterodox tenet holds; or is it to preclude consciousness having coming or going apart from all of them, as our school maintains? In truth, in the formless realm there is also consciousness having coming and going apart from form while having the remaining three skandhas. Saying 'there is no going or coming' precludes leaving all of them.