[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823) › 20.17 # 俱舍論頌疏論本 20.17 俱舍論頌疏論本 20.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [20.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20.17) 二有境果故者，二者，謂契經說：「識二緣生，如說眼識以眼及色為二緣，乃至意識以意根及法為二緣。意根過去，法通三世，過、未若無，能緣意識應闕二緣。過去無故，便闕意根。過、未無故，復闕法境。」已上教證也。有境者，此下有二種理證，此初理也。以識起時必有境故，有境識生，無境不生，其理決定。過、未若無，所緣無故，識亦應無。有果者，第二理也，又過去業有當果故，過去若無，其過去業體應非有；由業無故，當果應無。既業有果，故知過、未理必實有。下兩句者結宗，說三世實有故，許是一切有宗也。 > As for "Because of the two, the \[existence of an\] object, and the fruit": "the two" means that the sūtras state: "Consciousness arises dependent on two conditions; as it is said, eye-consciousness takes the eye and visible forms as two conditions, up to mental consciousness taking the mental faculty and mental objects as two conditions. The mental faculty is in the past, and mental objects extend through the three time-periods; if the past and future did not exist, the apprehending mental consciousness would lack two conditions. Because the past did not exist, it would lack the mental faculty; because the past and future did not exist, it would also lack the object of mental phenomena." The above is scriptural proof. As for "the \[existence of an\] object": below this there are two kinds of rational proofs, and this is the first reason. Because when consciousness arises there must be an object, when there is an object, consciousness arises, and without an object it does not arise—this principle is certain. If the past and future did not exist, because there would be no cognitive object, consciousness would also not exist. As for "the fruit": this is the second reason; furthermore, because past karma has a future fruit, if the past did not exist, the entity of that past karma would not exist; and because karma did not exist, the future fruit would not exist. Since karma has a fruit, we know that past and future must rationally be real existents. The lower two lines conclude the tenets: because they teach that the three time-periods are real existents, they are accepted as the Sarvāstivāda school. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 20.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20.16) - [Next: 20.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20.18) - [Up: 20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823~en-mt.20.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.20.17) · Pramāṇa