俱舍論疏 13.46

13.46

論「謂由火合至或似此非有」，論主答也。於中有二：一即、二似。謂由火合令薪熟變，生中熟因即是滅下熟因、或似滅下熟因。生上熟因，即是滅中熟因、或似滅中熟因。若爾，「則生因體應是滅因」者，破即。「或滅生因應相無別」者，破似。「不應由即此」，即生因為滅因、或似。似生因為滅因，同是一薪由火熟變，如何此由彼有、彼由此無。不應道理。

On the Śāstra's: "Namely, due to conjunction with fire ... or resembling this, does not exist": The author of the Śāstra answers. Therein are two [aspects]: identity and resemblance. Namely, due to conjunction with fire, the fuel is caused to undergo mature transformation: the cause producing middling maturity would be the cause of the cessation of lower maturity, or resemble the cause of the cessation of lower maturity. The cause producing higher maturity would be the cause of the cessation of middling maturity, or resemble the cause of the cessation of middling maturity. If so, "then the substance of the cause of arising would be the cause of cessation" refutes identity. "Or the causes of cessation and arising would have no difference in characteristic" refutes resemblance. "It is not proper that by this very [cause]" means identity of the cause of arising as the cause of cessation, or resemblance. The resemblance of the cause of arising as the cause of cessation: being one and the same fuel undergoing mature transformation by fire, how could this exist due to that, while that does not exist due to this? It is not reasonable.