俱舍論頌疏論本 8.53

8.53

非相續二生者，釋上不等，故非譬也。非相續者，汝所立像非一相續，不等於法。夫言相續，此滅彼生，唯從鏡中有像現故，明知質像體類各別，非一相續。又像與本質俱時而有，故知質像非是相續。若死生法是一相續，要從此死後彼方生，汝將質像非一相續法而喻死生一相續法者，不實等也。言二生者，汝所立像託二緣生，不等於法，謂本質及鏡為二緣也，生有唯從死有為緣，故生有起，唯一緣生法也。汝以二緣生法以喻一緣生法，是則不可等於法，故非譬也。已依正理對破彼宗，故知死生必有中有。

[The phrase] "nor a continuity, [and] arises from two [conditions]" explains the aforementioned "unequal, hence not an analogy". "Nor a continuity": the image you posit is not a single continuity, and does not equal the phenomenon [in question]. Now, speaking of a "continuity", this ceases and that arises; because it is only from the mirror that an image appears, one clearly knows that the material substance and the image are distinct in substance and class, not a single continuity. Furthermore, the image and the original substance exist at the same time; therefore, we know that the substance and the image are not a continuity. But the phenomena of death and rebirth are a single continuity, where rebirth necessarily occurs there only after death here. When you take the substance and the image, which are phenomena not constituting a single continuity, to serve as an analogy for death and rebirth, which are phenomena constituting a single continuity, they are not genuinely equal. Regarding "arises from two [conditions]": the image you posit arises dependent on two conditions and is not equal to the phenomenon, meaning that the original substance and the mirror are the two conditions; whereas existence at rebirth arises solely taking existence at death as a condition, so the arising of existence at rebirth is a phenomenon arising from a single condition. When you take a phenomenon arising from two conditions to serve as an analogy for a phenomenon arising from a single condition, it cannot equal the phenomenon; hence it is not an analogy. Having already refuted their school in accordance with correct reasoning, we therefore know that between death and rebirth there must be an intermediate existence.