俱舍論疏 8.80

8.80

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."