俱舍論疏 8.80

8.80

論「既爾中有至說名中有」，大眾被難轉釋。中有以是二趣中故，不名趣也（已上通第一經）。《正理論》云「然經主言：非別說故定非彼攝，如五濁中煩惱與見別說為濁，非別說故彼見定非煩惱所攝。如是業有雖亦是趣，為顯趣因所以別說，故有說趣體兼善、染。彼言非理，無處說故。有處說見亦是煩惱，雖有所因別說為濁，而准餘說知即煩惱。曾無有處說諸趣因業即趣體，可為誠證。雖有所因別說為有，而准彼說知業是趣。如何定知業是趣體？有所因故，有中別說。而非業有體非是趣，為顯趣因說為業有，故所引喻於證無能。」又云「業若趣體，趣應雜亂，於一趣中有多趣業故。若趣因業即是趣者，人有地獄業、惑現前，彼應是人亦是地獄。亦不應說地獄，趣體雖現在前而非地獄。如是則有大過失故。謂異熟果正現在前，應非地獄，無差別故。然契經說『異熟起已名那落迦』，故業非趣。」

The commentary states: "Since it is so, intermediate existence... is therefore called intermediate existence." Having been challenged, the Mahāsāṃghika alters their explanation: because intermediate existence stands between two destinies, it is not called a destiny (the above resolves the objection concerning the first sūtra). The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "However, the author of the treatise says: 'It is not the case that because it is stated separately it is definitely not subsumed under it, just as among the five corruptions afflictions and views are stated separately as corruptions, yet it is not the case that because they are stated separately those views are definitely not subsumed under afflictions. Likewise, although karmic existence is also a destiny, it is stated separately in order to show the cause of the destinies; thus some say the essence of a destiny encompasses both good and defiled.' His statement is unreasonable, because it is stated nowhere. While in some places it is stated that views are also afflictions, and though they are stated separately as a corruption for a particular reason, one knows by reference to other statements that they are indeed afflictions. Yet nowhere has it been stated that karma, the cause of the destinies, is itself the essence of a destiny, which could serve as authentic proof. Even though it is stated separately as an existence for a particular reason, can one know by reference to that statement that karma is a destiny? How can one know for certain that karma is the essence of a destiny? Because of a particular reason, it is stated separately among existences. Yet it is not that the essence of karmic existence is not a destiny; it is spoken of as karmic existence to reveal the cause of destinies—therefore, the analogy he adduces is incapable of serving as proof." It also says: "If karma were the essence of a destiny, the destinies would be confounded, because within a single destiny there is the karma of multiple destinies. If karma, which is the cause of a destiny, were itself the destiny, then when a human has the karma and defilements of hell present, they would be both a human and a hell [being]. Nor should it be said that although the essence of a hell destiny is present, they are not a hell [being]. For this would entail a great error: namely, that when the fruit of maturation is actually present, it would not be a hell [being], since there would be no distinction. However, the sūtra states, 'Once maturation has arisen, one is called a naraka'; therefore karma is not a destiny."