瑜伽論記 13.416

13.416

（基云：）何故不立小命根與大命根為根如四相等，今大乘不立亦無妨。對法約眾同分上立，故知通總別根，先業所引言唯是異熟不得通長養等流上。若於眾同分立言亦似通長養，然亦言先業，故唯報，又不然。唯是心上立，即六識異熟生心能持心六處上亦無妨，餘如對法，又生類後報不言報，非現，然如變易潤生，及羅漢捨衣鉢延命，皆滋宿業，故非現報。

Ji says: Why is a minor life faculty not established as a root for a major life faculty, like the four characteristics? Its non-establishment now in Mahāyāna causes no contradiction. The Abhidharma establishes it with reference to generic similarity, so it is known to encompass universal and particular faculties. The statement "induced by past karma" means it is solely ripening and cannot encompass the nurtured and the flow of identity. If established upon generic similarity, the phrasing also seems to encompass the nurtured, but it also says "past karma," hence it is solely retribution; yet this is not so. If established solely upon mind, it presents no contradiction to be on the six consciousnesses' minds born of ripening that can sustain the six bases of the mind; the rest is as in the Abhidharma. Furthermore, rebirth types being subsequent retributions are not called [immediate] retributions, not being present; but like transforming and moistening birth, and an arhat renouncing robes and bowl to prolong life, both nourish past karma, and thus are not present retribution.