俱舍論疏 20.47

20.47

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it is said that the assembly of conditions […] because it is accepted that they are permanently existent": this takes up the defense and rejects it. When the assembly of conditions converges, there is activity; when the assembly of conditions has not yet converged, there is no activity—hence activity is sometimes present and sometimes absent. This defense is illogical: since these conditions themselves are also accepted to be permanently existent, by what means could there be times of convergence and non-convergence?