俱舍論疏 4.204

4.204

論「若謂此得至理不成立」，經部縱計為生因破。若得是法生因名為有用，無為無生，應無有得。又所得法未得，及已捨，及界地轉易，及離染，彼皆無有法前之得，如何後法得生？又縱計云：若以俱得為生因者，大生、小生復何所作？得能生故。又無情法無俱生得，應定不生。「又具縛者下、中、上惑煩惱現起差別應無。得用無別故。」若謂由餘境界同類因等有差別者，即應由彼餘因諸法得生，得復何用？故彼言得作法生因，理不成立。

[On the passage in] the treatise, from "If you claim that this acquisition" to "this is logically unestablished": The Sautrāntika hypothetically concedes that it is a cause of arising and refutes it: If acquisition is a cause of the arising of dharmas and thus called functional, then unconditioned dharmas, having no arising, should have no acquisition. Furthermore, when the acquired dharma is not yet acquired, or has been abandoned, or when there is transition between realms and stages, or separation from passion—in all these cases there is no acquisition preceding the dharma; how then could the subsequent dharma arise? Moreover, hypothetically conceding: if simultaneous acquisition were taken as the cause of arising, what function would major arising and minor arising (upajāti) perform, since acquisition would be able to cause arising? Furthermore, insentient dharmas lack simultaneously arising acquisition and should definitely not arise. "Moreover, for one with all fetters, there would be no distinction in the manifestation of lower, middling, and higher defilements, because the function of acquisition would have no distinction." If it is said that the distinction is due to other factors such as the object-field or homogeneous causes (sabhāgahetu), then dharmas should arise by those other causes; what further use is acquisition? Therefore, their assertion that acquisition serves as a cause for the arising of dharmas is logically unestablished.