俱舍論疏 5.224

5.224

論「豈諸有法至而不可知」，有部答也。答中有三：一以細故，雖有實體，汝不知也。二反難，若無生體，因何得有生覺？三反難，若法外無生，如何得有第六轉聲？此即初也。豈得以汝但見因緣不見生相，即謂唯有因緣、無生相也。豈諸有法皆汝所知？此之生相雖現有體而不可知，以法性幽微甚難知故。

The Śāstra states: "Can it be that all existing dharmas... yet cannot be known?" This is the Sarvāstivādin's answer. In the answer there are three points: first, because it is subtle, although it has a real substance, you do not know it. Second, a counter-objection: if there were no substance of arising, on what basis could there be the cognition of arising? Third, a counter-objection: if there were no arising external to the dharma, how could there be the genitive case? This is the first. How could it be that merely because you only see causes and conditions and do not see the mark of arising, you claim there are only causes and conditions and no mark of arising? Can it be that all existing dharmas are known to you? Although this mark of arising actually has an entity, it cannot be known, because the nature of dharmas is subtle and extremely difficult to know.