俱舍論記 6.41

6.41

「此應詳辨至影用芽為因」者，經部反徵。此應詳辨，為如汝宗，即用燈焰與明為因，同時因果？為如我經部宗，由前念人功、燈器、油炷因緣和合，後念焰、明俱起？所以經部作此徵者，若焰生明，汝許、我不許，以經部不許同時因果。若前因緣和合生後焰明，即彼此同許，故引極成證前因後果。如日初出照芽東面，此東面有餘物障光明，芽西面自有影現。芽東面極微雖障光明，而不現影。芽西面極微雖現影，而不障光明。若言此影由東邊生者，中間既隔無量極微，如何得生？若言由西邊生者，日既不照，如何現影？又無日時亦應現影。故知此影非由同念芽為因生，但由前念芽生後念芽影自俱時起，如何說此影用芽為因？

Regarding [the text from] "This should be examined closely" to "taking the sprout as cause for the shadow": The Sautrāntika cross-examines: "This should be examined closely: Is it according to your school, where the lamp flame itself is taken as the cause for the light in a simultaneous cause and effect? Or is it according to our Sautrāntika school, where due to the harmonious combination of causes and conditions from the previous moment—human effort, the lamp vessel, the oil, and the wick—the flame and the light co-arise in the subsequent moment?" The reason the Sautrāntika raises this cross-examination is that if the flame produces the light, you accept it but I do not accept it, because the Sautrāntika does not accept simultaneous cause and effect. But if prior causes and conditions in harmony produce the subsequent flame and light, both parties mutually accept it; therefore, universally acknowledged examples are cited to prove prior cause and subsequent effect. For instance, when the sun first rises and shines upon the eastern side of a sprout, on this eastern side other objects obstruct the light, and on the western side of the sprout a shadow naturally appears. Although the subtle atoms on the eastern side of the sprout obstruct the light, they do not manifest a shadow. Although the subtle atoms on the western side of the sprout manifest a shadow, they do not obstruct the light. If one says that this shadow is produced from the eastern side, since it is separated in between by countless subtle atoms, how could it be produced? If one says that it is produced from the western side, since the sun is not shining there, how could a shadow appear? Furthermore, when there is no sun, a shadow should also appear. Thus we know that this shadow is not produced by taking the sprout of the same moment as its cause; rather, it is only that the sprout of the previous moment produces the sprout of the subsequent moment, and the shadow naturally arises at the same time. How can it be said that this shadow takes the sprout as its cause?