俱舍論疏 20.47

20.47

論「若謂眾緣至許常有故」，牒救非也。眾緣和合即有作用，眾緣未合即無作用，由此作用時有時無，此救非理。即此眾緣亦許常有，由何得有和合、不和合時？

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it is said that the assembly of conditions […] because it is accepted that they are permanently existent": this takes up the defense and rejects it. When the assembly of conditions converges, there is activity; when the assembly of conditions has not yet converged, there is no activity—hence activity is sometimes present and sometimes absent. This defense is illogical: since these conditions themselves are also accepted to be permanently existent, by what means could there be times of convergence and non-convergence?