俱舍論疏 19.225

19.225

論「然問者言至仍未解故」，答也。答問者欲令彼解，若一向記非一切當生，仍未解故，不成記也。《正理》云「豈不如彼生聞梵志問世尊言：『喬答摩氏！我有親愛，先已命終。今欲為其施所信食，彼為得此所施食耶？』世尊告言：『此非一向。若汝親愛生於如是餓鬼族中，有得此食。』既許彼是應分別記，此中亦問：一切死者皆當生耶？於此亦應不一向記，應為分別：有煩惱者生，非無煩惱者。如何此非應分別記？」

Regarding the treatise passage: "However, the questioner's words ... still do not understand": this is the reply. One who answers a question desires to make the other understand; if one definitively answers that not all will be born, because the other still does not understand, it does not constitute an [adequate] answer. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Is it not like when that mānavaka Jāṇussoṇi asked the World-Honored One, saying: 'Gautama! I have loved ones who have previously passed away. Now I wish to offer them faith-given food; do they receive this offered food?' The World-Honored One told him: 'This is not definitive. If your loved ones are born among such classes of hungry ghosts, there are those who receive this food.' Since it is accepted that this is an answer that should be analytical, in this case it is also asked: 'Will all who die be born?' Here too, one should not answer definitively; one should analyze: 'Those who have afflictions are born; those without afflictions are not.' How could this not be an answer that should be analytical?"