俱舍論疏 6.74

6.74

論「若不許色至因增上等」，敘異師說違本論也。《正理論》云「譬喻者說諸色決定無同類因，但由眾緣和合資助而得生長。現從井下掘出泥中有芽生故，非於地下曾有種生，芽從何起？故知色法無同類因，彼執違害本論所說。故本論言：過去大種、未來大種、因增上等（更無餘因，唯有同類因也）。」彼言：我說於此無違。由增上緣有近有遠，如次說為因、增上故。無方逃難矯設此言，雖似順文而實違理。又非許色有同類因，於理於文有所違害。然從井下掘出泥中有芽者，彼先有種，闕和合緣未生芽等，今緣和合芽等乃生。若彼泥中無同類因而得生者，應生一切或全不生，無定因故。《婆沙》一百三十一云「問：同趣、同地處所差別，展轉相望為有因不？有說無因。此不應理，應有大種是剎那故。謂五淨居所有大種，無始生死曾未起故。」准此論文，生處雖異，為同類因。然左眼不與右眼為因，身根不與餘根為因。言前位與後位為因者，據同類說，非是羯剌藍時身根與後眼等為因。

The Śāstra states: "If one does not accept that form [has a sabhāga-hetu] ... cause, predominant [condition], etc.," which recounts the statement of a different teacher that contradicts the fundamental treatise. The Nyāyānusāra states: "The Dṛṣṭāntikas say that forms definitely have no sabhāga-hetu; they are only produced and grow through the assistance and coming together of multiple conditions. Since sprouts are seen to emerge from mud excavated from deep in a well, and it is not the case that a seed had previously been produced beneath the earth, whence did the sprout arise? Therefore, we know that material dharmas have no sabhāga-hetu. Their tenet contradicts what is stated in the fundamental treatise. For the fundamental treatise states: 'Past mahābhūtas, future mahābhūtas, cause, predominant [condition], etc. (There is no other cause; there is only the sabhāga-hetu).'" They say: "Our statement does not contradict this, because the adhipati-pratyaya can be proximate or distant, and thus they are spoken of sequentially as 'cause' and 'predominant [condition]'." Having no way to escape the objection, they contrived this statement; though it seems to conform to the text, in reality it contradicts reason. Furthermore, accepting that form has a sabhāga-hetu does not contradict reason or text. As for sprouts growing from mud excavated from beneath a well: seeds were already present there, but because the coalescing conditions were lacking, the sprouts had not yet grown; now that the conditions have coalesced, the sprouts and so forth grow. If they could be produced without a sabhāga-hetu in that mud, everything should be produced, or nothing at all should be produced, because there would be no determined cause. Vibhāṣā 131 states: "Question: In the same g的目标 [gati] and the same stage (bhūmi), are the differences of location causes with respect to one another or not? Some say they are not causes. This is not reasonable, for then there would be mahābhūtas that are single-momentary, because the mahābhūtas belonging to the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens have never arisen in beginningless saṃsāra." According to this text, even though the places of birth are different, they serve as sabhāga-hetu. However, the left eye does not serve as a cause for the right eye, and the body sense-faculty does not serve as a cause for the other sense-faculties. When it is said that a prior state serves as a cause for a subsequent state, this is spoken with respect to the same category (sabhāga); it does not mean that the body sense-faculty at the time of the kalala serves as a cause for the subsequent eye and other faculties.