俱舍論疏 2.41

2.41

On the Śāstra's: "If it is said that they do not arise... the nose and tongue should also be non-existent": this explains the shifted defense. If it is said that the nose and tongue exist for the sake of adorning the body, whereas the male faculty is absent because of ugliness, [then we reply:] the concealed private parts are brought about by wholesome karma, so how could they allow for ugliness? From "Moreover, the arising of faculties..." onwards is the second objection. If the arising of the faculties is not due to utility or lack of utility, ugliness or beauty, but rather they arise wherever the cause exists, why discuss ugliness? Both the nose and tongue and the male faculty are free from attachment to their objects, so by principle they should equally lack attachment to the faculties; thus, if the male faculty does not exist, the nose and tongue should also be non-existent.