俱舍論疏 13.28

13.28

論「若後有異至理必不然」，破待異方滅也。此牒正量救也。正量部云：色等生已，待後異相方始有滅，非是纔生有滅也。「不應即此而名有異，即此相異理必不然」者，此即論主破異相也。前後法體若許不同，方可相異；始終是一，如何得言有相異耶？

Treatise: "If there is an alteration later […] this is logically impossible." This refutes the view that it perishes only after awaiting an alteration. This cites the Sammitīya's defense. The Sammitīya says: After matter and the like are born, they await a subsequent characteristic of alteration before finally perishing; it is not that they perish as soon as they are born. "It is not proper that this very thing should be called altered; that this very thing should be different in characteristic is logically impossible": this is the author's refutation of the characteristic of alteration. Only if the entity of the dharma before and after were conceded to be different could they be altered from one another; if it is one from beginning to end, how can it be said that there is difference in characteristic?