俱舍論疏 3.92

3.92

論「應如是說至皆是異熟」，此述論主釋也，如文可解。《正理》破云「而經主言由勝定力引取未曾諸根大種住時勢分，如此命根非是異熟，餘是異熟。」此言非理。所以者何？且彼唯說諸根大種住時勢分名為命根，如後當破。設許如是，隨執彼為長養等性，皆不應理。且不應執是長養性，彼能訪護異熟果故，所防異熟已轉盡故。不應異熟相續斷已獨有長養，太過失故。亦不應執是等流性，眼等無別等流性故，無記非善等流果故，又界應成雜亂過故。亦不應執是異熟性，定非欲界異熟因故，又彼自許如是事故。然其所說迷謬難詳，任更指陳。彼名何法而言此命非異熟耶？

The treatise says: "It should be stated thus up to are all vipāka"—this relates the master's own explanation, which can be understood from the text. The Nyāyānusāra refutes it, saying: "Yet the author of the commentary states that by the power of superior absorption, one draws in a temporal duration during which the previously unexperienced sense-faculties and great elements abide, and this life-faculty is not vipāka, while the rest are vipāka. This statement is unreasonable. Why so? First, he only speaks of the temporal duration of the abiding of the sense-faculties and great elements as being called the life-faculty, which will be refuted later. Even if this were conceded, whichever nature—nutriment-grown, and so forth—one posits it to be, none is logical. First, it should not be posited as nutriment-grown, because it can protect and preserve the fruit of vipāka, while that vipāka which was to be guarded has already turned away and ceased. It is not admissible that, once the continuum of vipāka is broken, nutriment-grown alone remains, for that would entail an excessive fault. Nor should it be posited as having the nature of flowing forth (niṣyanda), because the eye and so on have no distinct nature of flowing forth, because the indeterminate is not the flowing fruit of the wholesome, and because this would entail the fault of confusion among the realms (dhātu). Nor should it be posited as having the nature of vipāka, for it is definitely not a cause of vipāka in the desire realm, and also because he himself acknowledges such a case. Yet what he says is confused, erroneous, and hard to comprehend; let him point it out further. What dharma is it that he designates, to claim that this life is not vipāka?"