俱舍論疏 5.129

5.129

論「如穀種等至住時勢分」，舉喻顯也。《正理論》云「於此但應徵經主意。若處無業所引異熟內五色處，於彼或時無業所引第六意處。謂於長時起染污識，或善有漏及無漏識相續位中，無業所引異熟勢分，說何為壽？若於是處有業異熟，從生剎那至命終位恒無間轉，可說是處有業所引住時勢分，相續決定，說為命根。此既無業所引異熟住時勢分恒無間轉，云何可說此有命根？其理既然，為說何法名業所引住時勢分？既無所引住時勢分，相續決定復屬於誰？既無如是相續決定，由何義說隨應住時爾所時住說為壽體？是故經主於此義中專搆多言都無所表。又所引喻於證無能，如種所引相續無斷，乃至熟時恒隨轉故。放箭所引相續無斷，乃至住時恒隨轉故。此二可有乃至熟時住時勢分，非業異熟於一切時相續無斷，可言業謝猶有所引住時勢分相續決定，隨應住時爾所時住，故所引喻於證無能。」准上論文，《正理》破經部義。論主既下不存經部之義，不勞更釋。故下文云「別有實物是說為善」。有人雖作俱舍師釋，未為當理。

The treatise says: "Just as a grain seed, etc., up to: capacity of duration." This adduces an analogy to illustrate it. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Here one need only query the author of the treatise's intention. If in a place where there are no internal five physical āyatanas that are vipāka projected by karma, at that time there is also no sixth internal manas-āyatana projected by karma—namely, in a state where a defiled consciousness arises for a long time, or where wholesome sāsrava and anāsrava consciousnesses continue in succession—when there is no capacity of vipāka projected by karma, what would be called life? If in that place there were karmic vipāka continuing constantly without interruption from the moment of birth until the time of death, one could say that that place has a capacity of duration projected by karma, which is determinately fixed in continuity and is called the life-faculty. But since here there is no capacity of duration of vipāka projected by karma that continues constantly without interruption, how can one say that there is a life-faculty here? The principle being thus, what dharma could be designated as the capacity of duration projected by karma? Since there is no capacity of duration projected, to what would the determinate fixity in continuity belong? Since there is no such determinate fixity in continuity, on what principle can it be said that persisting for as long as it should persist according to its due duration is called the entity of life? Therefore, the author of the treatise, in this thesis, has merely contrived many words that express nothing at all. Furthermore, the analogy adduced lacks probative force. A continuity projected by a seed is unbroken and constantly follows along until the time of ripening. A continuity projected by shooting an arrow is unbroken and constantly follows along until it comes to rest. These two may have a capacity of duration up to ripening or coming to rest. But it is not the case that karmic vipāka is unbroken in continuity at all times, such that one could say that even when karma has ceased, there is still a capacity of duration projected by it that is determinately fixed in continuity, persisting for as long as it should persist according to its due duration. Hence the analogy adduced lacks probative force." Following the treatise text above, the Nyāyānusāra refutes the Sautrāntika thesis. Since the author of the treatise below does not retain the Sautrāntika position, there is no need to explain it further. Hence the text below says, "That there is a distinct real entity is the well-spoken view." Although someone has composed an explanation taking it as the Kośakāra's own view, it is not according to reason.