俱舍論疏 10.216

10.216

論「若能為害至識食亦爾」，難也。就中有二：一違前四句、二違《品類足》，此二皆說為緣資益方名食故。如何乃言洋銅、鐵丸亦是食耶？

On the treatise's statement, "If that which can cause harm ... the food of consciousness would also be likewise": this raises an objection. Within this there are two points: first, it contradicts the previous four permutations; second, it contradicts the Prakaraṇapāda. Both of these state that only what serves as a condition to nourish and benefit is called food. How then can one say that molten copper and iron pellets are also food?