俱舍論疏 6.32

6.32

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.