俱舍論記 9.187

9.187

「有執更以至是緣起義」者，此是經部中上坐解。字界、字緣各含多義，故通異釋。上坐為順己宗，復為一釋，通聲論難。謂鉢剌底取種種義，醫底界取不住義。言不住者，意顯前念法諸為緣。法已從落謝，故名不住。此不住法，若但一一不能為緣，一無用故。會有眾多，方有勢用。故造字者於不住界加種種助，以種種為先不住成緣義。參取聚集義，嗢同前取上升義。鉢地界取行義，行即有為遷流義也。行法上升得名為起，故於行界助以上升。然其一一無上升理，故言聚集，顯多共生。此文應言：由參嗢為先，行變成起。但言嗢者，略不言參。字緣之中且舉一助，亦無有妨。此顯不住種種含已，能令行法聚集升起，是緣起義。此中意者，不住為緣，顯是前念。要由種種，顯一無能。已結緣成屬前非後，顯非一法先至後生。由此已祛聲論所難。又解：說一切有部異師釋聲論難。又解：上坐釋大眾部難。又解：說一切有部異師釋大眾部難。若據此論破，即是說一切有部。若據正理不救，即是經部。雖有四解，前二解為勝。

Regarding "Some hold that furthermore by … is the meaning of dependent origination": this is an explanation by the Elder (Sthavira) within the Sautrāntika. Because verbal roots and affixes each contain multiple meanings, they allow for variant interpretations. In order to conform to his own school, the Elder provides another explanation to resolve the grammarian's objection. Namely, *prati* takes the meaning of "manifold" (*vividha*), and the root *i* takes the meaning of "not remaining" (*anavasthita*). Saying "not remaining" is intended to show that dharmas of the preceding moment are all conditions. The dharmas have already fallen away from the past, hence they are called "not remaining." If these non-remaining dharmas are merely single, they cannot act as conditions, for a single one has no efficacy. Only when there is an assembly of many do they possess potency. Therefore, the coiner of the word added the modifier "manifold" (*prati*) to the root "not remaining" (*i*), taking "preceded by manifoldness, that which does not remain becomes a condition" as the meaning. *Sam* takes the meaning of "gathering together" (*samavāya*), and *ud* as before takes the meaning of "rising upward." The root *pad* takes the meaning of "moving" (*gamana*); moving means the transient flux of conditioned things. Conditioned dharmas rising upward are termed "arising," hence the root of moving is supplemented with "upward." However, single ones have no principle of rising upward, so it says "gathering together," showing that many co-arise. This text should say: "Because *sam* and *ud* precede it, moving (*pad*) turns into arising (*samutpāda*)." It merely says *ud*, omitting *sam* for brevity. Among word-elements, to mention only one auxiliary prefix is also without fault. This shows that "not remaining" contains "manifoldness," and can cause conditioned dharmas to gather together and rise upward, which is the meaning of dependent origination (*pratītyasamutpāda*). The point here is: "not remaining" serving as conditions shows that they are the preceding moment. It must depend on "manifoldness," showing that a single one has no capability. Having established that the condition is formed, it belongs to the preceding and not to the subsequent, showing that it is not that a single dharma first reaches [the conditions] and afterward arises. Thereby, the grammarian's objection has already been dispelled. Another explanation: another teacher of the Sarvāstivāda resolves the grammarian's objection. Another explanation: the Elder resolves the Mahāsāṃghika's objection. Another explanation: another teacher of the Sarvāstivāda resolves the Mahāsāṃghika's objection. If judged by the refutation in this treatise, it is the Sarvāstivādin. If judged by the *Nyāyānusāra* not defending it, it is the Sautrāntika. Although there are four explanations, the first two are superior.