俱舍論記 6.224

6.224

「有餘師說至所收果實」者，第二師解。此異熟因，亦有隔越遠士用果，譬如農夫春時耕種、秋時獲果。若據通名，士用六因皆得，今此第二師說約斯說也。頌明士用但取俱生，簡餘四因，故言二得。故《顯宗》第九云「俱生士用果定有。又勝故說相應、俱有因得。無間、隔越或有或無，設有非勝又濫餘果，是故不言餘因所得。問：士用之名總有四種，謂俱生、無間、隔越、不生，即通五果。今言士用，豈不濫餘？解云：餘四從別立名，此一從總立名。雖標總稱即受別名，如色處等。

Regarding 'Some other masters say [...] the harvested grain': This is the second master's explanation. This ripening cause also has a distant, separated virile fruit (puruṣakāra-phala), just as when a farmer plows and sows in spring and reaps fruit in autumn. In terms of the general designation, the virile [fruit] is obtained from all six causes; the statement of this second master here is made in accordance with this. The verse, in clarifying the virile [fruit], takes only the co-arising one, excluding the other four causes, and therefore says that two obtain it. Thus, the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā, fascicle 9, states: 'A co-arising virile fruit is definite [to exist]. Moreover, because of its pre-eminence, it is said to be obtained by the associated cause and the co-existent cause. The immediately subsequent and the separated either exist or do not; even if they exist, they are not pre-eminent, and furthermore they are confounded with other fruits; therefore, it is not said that they are obtained by the other causes. Question: There are four kinds of virile [fruit] in total, namely, co-arising, immediately subsequent, separated, and non-arising, which thus extends across the five fruits. Now, in calling it "virile," would it not be confounded with the others? The explanation is: The other four establish their designations from specific aspects, whereas this one establishes its designation from the general. Although it denotes a general appellation, it receives a specific designation, just as with the form-base (rūpa-āyatana) and so forth.'