俱舍論記 3.65

3.65

「尊者妙音至或捨壽行」者，此下第二敘二異說。此即初師不正義也。彼阿羅漢，由邊際定力，引色界四大令身中現前。而彼大種有其二類：一順壽行、二違壽行。若起順者，令身增益，能留壽行。若起違者，令身散壞，能捨壽行。問：所延壽行是異熟不？解云：此是等流。別有一類等流命根，由定力故以身為依。非言業感，明非異熟。若非異熟，有違宗過。若言即身，同經部假。此則自宗不正義也。又解：是異熟。妙音意說：所引命根雖現業感，或宿殘業感、或不定業感，要由起彼色界大種扶持此身隨順壽行壽方得延。若作斯解，亦不違宗。

"Venerable Ghoṣaka [...] or discards the formations of life": below, this is the second part, recounting two differing explanations. This is the first master's incorrect view. That arhat, through the power of the border samādhi, draws upon the four great elements of the form realm so that they become manifest in his body. Moreover, these great elements are of two kinds: first, those concordant with the formations of life; second, those contrary to the formations of life. If he generates those that are concordant, they augment the body and he can retain the formations of life. If he generates those that are contrary, they disperse and destroy the body, and he can discard the formations of life. Question: Is the prolonged lifespan an elaboration of karma (vipāka)? Explanation: This is an equal outflow (niṣyanda). There is a distinct kind of life-faculty of equal outflow that, through the power of samādhi, relies on the body as its support. Because it is not said to be karma-induced, it is clear that it is not an elaboration of karma. If it is not an elaboration of karma, there is the fault of contradicting the school's doctrine. If one says that it is simply the body, this agrees with the Sautrāntika view of it being a conceptual imputation. Thus this is an incorrect view within our own school. Another explanation states: It is an elaboration of karma. Ghoṣaka's meaning is that although the drawn-upon life-faculty is induced by present karma, or induced by past residual karma, or induced by indefinite karma, it must depend on generating those great elements of the form realm to support this body in accordance with the formations of life before the lifespan can be prolonged. If one explains it in this way, it does not contradict our school either.