俱舍論記 8.178

8.178

「此經意說至即是生有」者，論主通經。經言無間定墮地獄，無異趣間，及顯順生無餘業間。若但執文即為定者，應要具五方生地獄，非隨闕一，造一、二、三、四應當不生。亦應唯此五無間業能生地獄，非餘業因能生地獄。若不生者，便成大過。又言無間生那落迦，應作業已第二剎那即生地獄，不待身壞。然有造無間業已，或經十年、二十年等方生無間。不應如文即執。我許中有亦得名生，生方便故。亦名那落迦，那落迦此名不可樂，地獄中有亦不可樂故。經言無間生那落迦，不言爾時即是生，何所相違？

Regarding the passage: "The intention of this sūtra is to say that... this refers to the birth-existence": The author of the treatise clarifies the sūtra. When the sūtra states "without interval," it means one will definitely fall into hell without the interval of a different destiny, and it indicates that according to sequential rebirth, no other karma intervenes. If one were strictly to adhere to the literal text as definitive, then one would have to commit all five to be born in hell, and lacking any one of them—committing only one, two, three, or four—one would not be born [there]. It would also entail that only these five unhindered karmas could produce birth in hell, and no other karmic causes could do so. If they did not produce it, that would be a grave fault. Furthermore, regarding the phrase "born into Naraka without interval," one would have to be born into hell in the very second moment after committing the act, without waiting for the dissolution of the body. Yet there are those who, having committed an unhindered act of karma, are born into Avīci only after ten, twenty, or more years. One should not cling strictly to the letter. We maintain that the intermediate state can also be called "birth" (upapatti), because it is an expedient toward birth. It is also called Naraka; Naraka means "not enjoyable," and the intermediate state of hell is also not enjoyable. The sūtra says "born into Naraka without interval," but it does not say that at that moment it is the birth-existence (upapatti-bhava); what contradiction is there?