俱舍論疏 6.32

6.32

論「由果等者至及一等流」，此開果為三也。《正理論》云「豈不等流、異熟亦是一果攝？如何一果外說異熟、等流耶？實爾，此中言一果者，但攝士用及離繫果。豈不此言通故，亦攝等流、異熟？雖言亦攝，非此所明。然士用果總有四種，俱生、無間、隔越、不生。此顯與因非俱有果，為遮唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果，此和合聚互為果故，自非自體士用果故，即顯非彼俱起和合。士用果中有一果義，是故別舉等流、異熟。」准此論文，遮同時果，非彼欲取無間、隔越士用果也。

On the Śāstra's stating, "In terms of fruit [...] and a single outflow": This expands fruit into three [aspects]. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Are not outflow [fruit] and maturation [fruit] also subsumed under a single fruit? How can one speak of maturation and outflow outside of a single fruit? Truly so; what is called 'a single fruit' here subsumes only the fruit of virile activity and the fruit of disconnection. Does not this phrase, because of its general scope, also subsume outflow and maturation? Although it is said that it also subsumes them, that is not what is being clarified here. However, fruits of virile activity are of four kinds in total: co-arising, immediate, separated, and non-arising. This demonstrates that it is not a coexistent fruit with the cause, in order to refute the view that grasps that a fruit of virile activity exists only within a concordant aggregation that arises simultaneously with the cause; because within this concordant aggregation they are mutual fruits, and an entity itself is not its own fruit of virile activity, this demonstrates that it is not that simultaneously arising concordant aggregation. Within the fruit of virile activity there is the meaning of a single fruit; therefore, outflow and maturation are brought up separately." In accordance with this text of the treatise, it refutes a simultaneous fruit, and it is not that it intends to take immediate and separated fruits of virile activity.