俱舍論記 30.30

30.30

「以有外道至義與前同」者，論主答。以有外道名嗢底迦，此云能說。先問世間有邊等四，世尊不答。後設方便矯問世尊，為諸世間常等皆由聖道能得出離？為但一分出離、一分不出離耶？尊者阿難在於佛側，因告彼曰：「汝以此事已問世尊，世間有邊、無邊等四？今復何緣改邊、無邊等四名為常、非常等四，重問世尊？」有邊是非常，無邊是常，亦有邊亦無邊是亦常亦非常，非有邊非無邊是非常非非常，故知後四義與前同。

Regarding 'Because there was a non-Buddhist [named Uttika ...] the meaning is the same as the previous': the author of the treatise replies. Because there was a non-Buddhist named Uttika (translated here as 'one who can speak'). He first asked about the four propositions concerning whether the world is finite and so forth, and the World-Honoured One did not answer. Later, he devised an expedient to question the World-Honoured One deceitfully: 'Can all the worlds, being eternal and so forth, attain liberation by means of the noble path? Or does only a portion attain liberation while another portion does not attain liberation?' The Venerable Ānanda, who was at the Buddha's side, then said to him: 'You have already asked the World-Honoured One concerning this matter with the four propositions of whether the world is finite, infinite, and so forth. For what reason do you now alter the four terms "finite", "infinite", and so forth into the four of "eternal", "impermanent", and so forth, and ask the World-Honoured One again?' Finite is impermanent; infinite is eternal; both finite and infinite is both eternal and impermanent; neither finite nor infinite is neither eternal nor impermanent. Therefore we know that the meaning of the latter four is the same as the former.