瑜伽論記 14.15

14.15

此中已下，次明假實。景云：此破小乘執一剎那身業有動是其實業，今約相續此滅彼生假名身業，一念無動故無實業。此約本識相分根色此滅彼生，以破外執。意識影像隨質無記，基云：以正量部師色法相續一期四相有別動色說名身表，今破之云：剎那剎那生滅相續於此處滅於餘處生，非一實法中無生滅從此不滅而能往彼，吠世師德句中屈申等亦爾有實體，今同破之。若薩婆多雖無動色然別有業色，如屈申時有別業色生，今不然，唯有異熟無記色身於此處由思力故變易而生，非別有業色，故言唯有身於餘處滅等。

From here below, it next clarifies the nominal and the real. Jing says: This refutes the Hinayāna clinging that within a single instant bodily action has movement, which is its real action. Here, action of the body is nominally designated in terms of the continuum where this ceases and that arises; because there is no movement in a single thought-moment, there is no real action. This is stated in terms of the sense-faculty form of the image aspect of the fundamental consciousness ceasing here and arising there, in order to refute the external attachments. The mental consciousness's reflection follows the basic matter as indeterminate. Ji says: Because the masters of the Saṃmatīya school hold that the continuum of material dharmas throughout one period of the four characteristics has distinct moving form which is called bodily manifestation, it is now refuted: Moments perish and arise in succession, ceasing in this place and arising in another place; it is not that within a single real dharma without arising and ceasing it does not perish here and can go there. The expansion, contraction, and so forth among the quality category of the Vaiśeṣikas are also held to have real substance; they are now refuted together. If it is the Sarvāstivāda: although they lack moving form, they hold there is a separate action-form; for instance, when expanding and contracting, a separate action-form arises. Here it is not so: there is only the karmically matured, indeterminate physical body transformed and arisen in this place through the power of volition, and not a separate action-form; therefore it says that there is only the body ceasing in another place, and so forth.