俱舍論記 5.120

5.120

「謂三界業至住時勢分」者，經部答。謂三界業所引眾同分住時勢分不斷，於此勢分說為壽體。「由三界」下，別顯同分住時勢分長短。由三界業力所引，同分住時勢分相續決定，從應住時爾所時住，或經十年或百年等，即此勢分假說為壽。如穀種等所引，乃至熟時勢分於此勢分不斷，假說功能。又如放箭所引，乃至住時勢分，於此勢分假說為行。經部復重虛累假，故於假同分上復假立命根。問：若於同分假立命根，何故《正理》十三敘經部義云「由業所引，六處并依住時勢分相續決定，隨應住時爾所時住，故此勢分說為壽體。」准彼論文，於六處及依上假立命根，豈不相違依謂扶根？解云：同分無體，還依六處及依上立。此論據假依假，《正理》據假依實，故不相違。又《正理》難經部云「若處無業所引異熟內五色處，於彼或時無業所引第六意處。謂於長時起染污識或善有漏及無漏識相續位中，無業所引異熟勢分，說何為壽？」《正理》難意：於無色界無內五處，或起餘心又無異熟意處，異熟勢分於彼既無，說何為壽？俱舍師解云：若依異熟立者，是異熟。若依餘立者，非是異熟。雖依彼立，非隨彼法判性，如名、句等依善、惡聲。

"It is the momentum of the duration of the homogeneous collective [of beings]…" is the Sautrāntika's reply. That is, the unbroken continuity of the momentum of the duration of the homogeneous collective (nikāya-sabhāga) projected by karma belonging to the three realms—this momentum is declared to be the life-faculty itself. The words from "due to [karma belonging to] the three realms" downward specifically elucidate the length or shortness of the momentum of the duration of the homogeneous collective. Projected by the force of karma belonging to the three realms, the momentum of the duration of the homogeneous collective continues with certainty, enduring for precisely as long as it ought to endure, whether for ten years, a hundred years, and so on; it is this very momentum that is nominally designated as life (āyus). Just as, projected by a grain seed or the like, there is a momentum up to the time of ripening, and upon this unbroken momentum one nominally designates a functional capacity (sāmarthya); and again just as, projected by the release of an arrow, there is a momentum up to its coming to rest, and upon this momentum one nominally designates velocity (saṃskāra). The Sautrāntika furthermore stacks designation upon designation, and thus upon the designated homogeneous collective additionally posits the life-faculty nominally. Question: If the life-faculty is nominally posited upon the homogeneous collective, why does the thirteenth fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra, in stating the Sautrāntika position, say: "Projected by karma, the momentum of the duration of the six sense-bases together with their supports continues with certainty, enduring for precisely as long as it ought to endure; therefore, this momentum is spoken of as the life-faculty"? According to that treatise, the life-faculty is nominally posited upon the six sense-bases and their supports; is this not contradictory? "Support" means the supporting sensory organs. The explanation is: the homogeneous collective has no real substance and is itself posited dependent upon the six sense-bases and their supports. This treatise proceeds from a designation dependent upon a designation, whereas the Nyāyānusāra proceeds from a designation dependent upon what is real; therefore they do not contradict each other. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra challenges the Sautrāntika: "Where there are no internal five physical sense-bases projected by karma as maturation, and where in that realm at times there is no sixth mental sense-base projected by karma as maturation—that is to say, during the phase of a prolonged continuum of defiled consciousness, or of wholesome sāsrava or anāsrava consciousness, wherein there is no momentum of maturation projected by karma—what would you call life?" The intention of the Nyāyānusāra's objection is: in the Formless Realm, there are no internal five sense-bases, and when another mind arises, there is also no mental sense-base of maturation. Since the momentum of maturation is absent there, what is spoken of as life? The Kośa master explains: If it is posited dependent upon maturation, it is maturation. If it is posited dependent upon the rest, it is not maturation. Although posited dependent upon them, its nature is not determined in accordance with those phenomena, just as nominal stems, sentences, and the like are dependent upon wholesome or unwholesome sounds.