俱舍論疏 19.236

19.236

論「若爾應俱是反詰記」，難也。如有請言：為我說道。此名問道。由反詰記彼所問，即是記道。若爾者，前問、後問俱是反詰記，因何於中有分別記？

The Śāstra says: "If so, both should be cross-examining explanations." This is an objection. If someone makes a request, saying: "Teach me the path"—this is called asking about the path. Because cross-examination explains what was asked, that itself is explaining the path. If so, both the former question and the latter question would be cross-examining explanations; why then is there an analytical explanation among them?