俱舍論疏 13.42

13.42

論「彼俱非理至順違相反故」，論主破也。於中有二：一破住無為因；二破法、非法因。「彼俱非理」者，雙非二執也。「無非因」者，破住無為因。住無非因。因云以是無故猶如兔角。「非法、非法為生滅因，以剎那剎那順違相反」者，破勝論執於一剎那燈，望有用即順、無用即違。順、違相反，如何同起？《正理》破云「法與非法亦非滅因，見空窟中有焰轉故（解云：空窟中焰無人受用，即無損益；既無損益，無法、非法，誰令焰滅）。」

On the Śāstra's: "Both of these are unreasonable ... because compliant and contrary oppose each other": The author of the Śāstra refutes [them]. Therein are two points: first, refuting the non-existence of abiding as cause; second, refuting dharma and adharma as causes. "Both of these are unreasonable" rejects both positions together. "Non-existence is not a cause" refutes the non-existence of abiding as cause. The non-existence of abiding is not a cause: the reason is that because it is non-existent, it is like a hare's horn. "Dharma and adharma are not the causes of arising and cessation, because moment by moment compliant and contrary oppose each other" refutes the Vaiśeṣika position: with regard to the lamp of a single moment, relative to having utility it is compliant, and relative to having no utility it is contrary. Compliant and contrary oppose each other; how could they arise together? The Nyāyānusāra refutes [it] by saying: "Dharma and adharma are also not causes of cessation, because a flame is seen continuing in an empty cave (explaining: the flame in an empty cave is enjoyed by no one, hence there is neither harm nor benefit; since there is neither harm nor benefit, there is neither dharma nor adharma: what causes the flame to cease?)."