俱舍論疏 29.132

29.132

論「然彼於此至舉以為難」，第二破難也。此破前難異薪，薪應不熱。若熱謂煖觸，即煖觸異薪，即薪非熱，體相各異故。若謂煖合，則薪煖合，許薪名熱。雖薪火異，而過不成，如何此中舉以為難。

On the Śāstra's statement: "However, regarding this, they […] raised as a challenge": This is the second refutation, addressing the challenge. This refutes their previous challenge that if it were different from fuel, fuel would not be hot. If heat means the tactile sensation of warmth, then the tactile sensation of warmth is different from fuel, so fuel would not be hot, because their entities and characteristics are each distinct. If you say it is the conjunction with warmth, then when fuel and warmth are conjoined, you allow fuel to be called hot. Although fuel and fire are different, the fault is not established; how could this be raised here as a challenge?