[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 10.81 # 俱舍論疏 10.81 俱舍論疏 10.81 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10.81) 論「於已生法至重說何用」，有部責經部因與宗同也。如說聲是無常，以生滅故。生滅、無常，義意無別，如何非因證無常宗？汝言二法俱時而生，宗即是二法相望無功能義。我今問汝不立所因，還重答言無功能故。與前何別？重說無用。 > On the Śāstra's statement: "With respect to an already arisen dharma ... what is the use of repeating it?": the Sarvāstivādin reproaches the Sautrāntika that their reason is identical with their thesis. For example, stating that sound is impermanent because it arises and ceases: 'arising and ceasing' and 'impermanence' are conceptually no different; how can an invalid reason prove the thesis of impermanence? You say that the two dharmas arise simultaneously, and your thesis is precisely the meaning that the two dharmas mutually lack functional capacity. Now I asked you the reason why it is not established, and you merely replied again: 'Because of lack of functional capacity.' How is this different from before? Repeating it is useless. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10.80) - [Next: 10.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10.82) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.10.81) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.10.81) · Pramāṇa