俱舍論記 3.66

3.66

「應如是說至皆是異熟」者，此即第二敘經部說。論主意明經部，故言應如是說。若延壽時，彼阿羅漢由此自在三摩地力，轉去曾得宿業所生異熟諸根大種住時勢分，引取未曾得定力所起長養諸根大種住時勢分。經部師說：諸根大種住時勢分不斷義邊，假立命根。長養勢分假建立者，由定力故，非是異熟，是等流。又解：是長養。既異熟上假建立者是異熟，明知長養上假建立者亦名長養。前解為勝。所餘一切異熟勢分假建立者，皆是異熟。若促壽時者，但轉宿業諸根大種令不現前，不引定力諸根大種。《正理》破云「且不應執是長養性，彼能防守異熟果故、所防異熟已轉盡故，不應異熟相續斷已獨有長養。」俱舍師救云：有異熟處必有長養。自有長養處而無異熟，如無眼者修得天眼。《正理》前文自作是說，如何至後復更生疑？

"It should be explained in this way [...] are all elaborations of karma": this is the second part, recounting the Sautrāntika explanation. The author of the treatise intends to clarify the Sautrāntika view, and therefore says "It should be explained in this way." When prolonging life, that arhat, through the power of this sovereign samādhi, turns away the capacity for duration of the great elements and faculties born of past karma that were previously acquired, which are elaborations of karma, and draws upon the capacity for duration of the great elements and faculties born of the power of samādhi that were never acquired before, which are nutritional developments (aupacayika). The Sautrāntika masters say: Based on the uninterrupted continuance of the capacity for duration of the faculties and great elements, the life-faculty is conceptually posited. That which is conceptually established on the capacity of nutritional development is due to the power of samādhi; it is not an elaboration of karma, but an equal outflow. Another explanation states: It is nutritional development. Since what is conceptually established upon elaboration of karma is an elaboration of karma, it is clear that what is conceptually established upon nutritional development is also called nutritional development. The former explanation is superior. All the remaining [life-faculties] conceptually established upon the capacity of elaboration of karma are elaborations of karma. When life is curtailed, one merely turns away the faculties and great elements of past karma so that they do not become manifest, and does not draw upon the faculties and great elements of the power of samādhi. The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, stating: "First, it should not be held to be of the nature of nutritional development, because it protects the fruition of elaboration of karma, and the elaboration of karma that was protected has already been turned away and exhausted; it is unreasonable that after the continuum of elaboration of karma has been severed, nutritional development alone exists." The Kośa master rescues this, stating: Wherever there is elaboration of karma, there must be nutritional development. There are cases where nutritional development exists on its own without elaboration of karma, as when someone lacking physical eyes cultivates and attains the divine eye. The earlier text of the *Nyāyānusāra* itself made this statement; why does it raise doubts again later?