俱舍論頌疏論本 8.52

8.52

Explanation: The first six lines prove it through reason; the seventh and eighth lines prove it through scripture. The first two lines formulate an inference (anumāna) to refute the Mahāsāṃghikas. "As in the continuity of grain and the like": just as when grain and other seeds are planted in spring and harvested in autumn, there must be a continuity of sprouts and so forth in between. "Arising successively without a break in space": since the fruit from the grain seed is a continuity, it must arise successively moment by moment without a break in space. "Without a break" means there is no gap between the seed and fruit, with the sprout, stalk, and so forth in between. Just as in the continuity of grain and the like there is no spatial gap, the continuity of sentient beings should logically be the same. The death and birth of sentient beings are continuous dharmas; how could there be a gap such that one claims there is no intermediate existence? Here there is an inference: "like grain and the like" is the example (dṛṣṭānta); "without a break in space" is the property of the thesis (sādhya); "arising successively" is the reason (hetu). The formulation is: Death and birth are the subject (pakṣa); necessarily being without a spatial break is the property to be proved; the reason is: because of arising successively; the similar example (sādharmyadṛṣṭānta) is: just like seed and fruit. The seed and fruit arise successively, and seed and fruit are without a spatial break; death and birth arise successively, so death and birth are without a spatial break. "Since an image is not established as real, it is unequal, hence not an analogy": this refutes the defense of the Mahāsāṃghikas. The treatise says: "Do we not visually see that a phenomenon arises in succession, yet among them there is also a spatial gap? Just as, depending on a mirror or the like, an image appears from the original form. In this way, although there is a spatial gap between the death-existence and birth-existence of sentient beings, what prevents them from arising successively?" The explanation says: This is the defense of the Mahāsāṃghikas. They claim that with 'arising successively' as the reason, there is the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika) in the reason. Are death-existence and birth-existence like a seed and fruit, necessarily without a break because of arising successively? Or are they like an original form and its image, which also have a break despite arising successively? They argue: The original form and image arise in succession, yet an image is accepted as having a break. Death and birth arise in succession, so death and birth also have a break. In order to refute this defense, this verse is stated. There are two lines of reasoning that refute it: first, the alleged real existence of the image is unestablished; second, the analogy of the image is not equal to the phenomenon. Due to these two lines of reasoning, it is not a valid analogy. Therefore the treatise says: "What is called an image is the arising of a distinct form; its real entity is logically unestablished. Even if it were established, it is not equal [to the subject], and thus cannot serve as an analogy. Two do not coexist in one place." This explains the line "Since an image is not established as real." The treatise has four points explaining "Two do not coexist in one place." The first says: In one place, the color of the mirror and the image are both seen before us; two forms cannot coexist in the same place, because they rely on different great elements (The explanation says: In the place of a single mirror, it is impossible for the image and the mirror's form to arise simultaneously as real entities; since the two arise together, the image is not real). The second says: Moreover, over narrow water, the forms and shapes of both banks appear simultaneously in the same place as two images; people dwelling on both banks clearly see each other, yet two forms have never been seen together in one place; one should not say that these two forms arise side by side (The explanation says: In the single place of the water, the images of both banks arise; since the two images arise together, one knows that the images are not real entities). The third says: Moreover, shadow and light have never existed in the same place; yet a mirror has been seen suspended within a shadow, and an image of light clearly appears on the mirror's surface; one should not say that these two arise together here (The explanation says: The obstruction of the arising of light is called shadow; therefore one knows that light should not exist in the place of a shadow. Since an image of light in the mirror is seen within a shadow, the image is not real). The fourth says: Alternatively, regarding 'two do not coexist in one place', the surface of the mirror and the image of the moon are spoken of as two, seen distinctly as near and far, like looking into well water. If they arose together, how could they be seen distinctly? Hence one knows that all images are logically non-existent (The explanation says: In the single place of a mirror, there are two images—of the face and of the moon; viewing the face-image it is near, while viewing the moon-image it is far. If the two images were real, how could near and far be viewed distinctly in a single place?). Furthermore, the treatise says: "However, through the power of the combination of various causes and conditions, they are seen like this; because the distinct functions of the nature of dharmas are inconceivable (The explanation says: 'caused to be seen like this' means that through the power of the mirror, the original form, etc., one sees back one's original face; in reality there is no image)."