俱舍論頌疏論本 13.24

13.24

從此第三，證有無表。如前〈界品〉以經部宗不許無表是實有故，彼說無表但是思種，謂審、決、動、發四現行思，於色、心上熏成種子。此思種上防非止過，假立無表，但不作惡即名無表，更無實體。故論云：「經部亦說此非實有，由先誓限，唯不作故，彼亦依過去大種施設。然過去大種體非有故，又諸無表無色相故（解云：一、由不作，即名無表。二、無表依過去大種。大種尚非有，無表豈得有？三、又無色相。由此三因，故無表無實也）。」故此已下，薩婆多宗以八義證無表實有，頌曰：

From here [comes] the third [section], establishing the existence of avijñapti. As mentioned before in the "Chapter on the Dhātus", because the Sautrāntika school does not accept that avijñapti is substantially real, they say that avijñapti is merely the seed of intention (cetanā)—namely, the four active intentions of deliberation, decision, moving [the body], and issuing [speech], which perfume and form seeds upon form (rūpa) and mind (citta). Upon these intention-seeds, [functions of] guarding against wrong and preventing transgression are nominally designated as avijñapti; simply not doing evil is called avijñapti, without having any real substance. Therefore the śāstra states: "The Sautrāntikas also say that this is not substantially real, because it is merely non-action due to a prior vow, and because it is posited based on past great elements (mahābhūta). However, past great elements lack real substance, and furthermore, forms of avijñapti have no material characteristics (rūpa-lakṣaṇa). (Explanation: First, because of non-action, it is called avijñapti. Second, avijñapti relies on past great elements; if the great elements do not even exist, how could avijñapti exist? Third, it also has no material characteristics. Due to these three reasons, avijñapti has no real substance)." Therefore, below this, the Sarvāstivāda school proves with eight arguments that avijñapti is substantially real. The verse says: