俱舍論記 8.159

8.159

「言非等故至故不成喻」者，此下第二顯非等。此釋頌文第四句、第六句。就中，一約非相續破、二約二生破。此即初門。論主言：設許像實，非等於法，為喻不成。謂質與像非是一物，此滅彼生前後相續，唯依鏡等有像現故，非於本質。此顯像、質體類各別，非一相續。又像、本質俱時有故，非一相續，前滅後生。如死、生有是一相續，前滅後生中無間隔。質、像不然，故不成喻。

"The statement that they are not analogous [...] hence it fails as an example": from here on, second, he demonstrates that they are not analogous. This explains the fourth and sixth lines of the stanza. Herein, first, refutation based on not being a continuity; second, refutation based on dual arising. This is the first approach. The author of the treatise says: even if one concedes that reflections are real, they are not analogous to the subject, and so fail as an example. That is, the original object and the reflection are not a single entity; it is not that the cessation of this gives rise to that in sequential continuity, because a reflection appears only based on the mirror and so forth, not on the original object. This shows that reflection and original object are different in substance and class, not a single continuity. Furthermore, because reflection and original object exist simultaneously, they are not a single continuity where the preceding perishes and the subsequent arises. The existence at death and existence at birth are a single continuity, where the preceding perishes and the subsequent arises without a temporal gap. The original object and reflection are not like this; therefore it fails as an example.