俱舍論疏 13.39

13.39

論「彼亦非理至復由誰滅」，論主破也。有三道理：一二不俱故，後念起時前念已滅，如何不俱能令滅也。猶如苦、樂及貪、嗔等，前、後不俱，如何後念滅於前念。二從明了覺、聲，如何不明了能滅明了耶？三最後覺、聲既無後念，復由誰滅耶？

Treatise: "That too is unreasonable […] by what would it be destroyed?" The author refutes this. There are three points of reason: First, because the two do not co-exist. When the subsequent moment arises, the preceding moment has already perished; how could what does not co-exist cause cessation? It is just like pleasure and suffering, or greed and hatred: preceding and subsequent do not co-exist; how could a subsequent moment destroy a preceding moment? Second, from a clear consciousness or sound, how could something unclear destroy something clear? Third, since the final consciousness or sound has no subsequent moment, by what would it be destroyed?