瑜伽論記 14.391

14.391

基云：謂薩婆多救火是滅因故，故今破云：此火與薪既俱生滅，不可與滅為因，如火與薪俱生，則火非生因，既與薪俱滅，何得與滅為因。若言火滅為因者，既薪俱生，生即應滅，現見薪為火，依火不能滅，何得將火為薪滅之因耶？伏難云：若爾，火等於薪復何所作，又俱生滅，何妨為因？今云：唯能為彼變異後法生緣，說於薪作用，非為滅緣是薪作用，如顯揚曰：光雪酢，大同。

Ji says: Because the Sarvāstivādins salvage [their position by asserting that] fire is the cause of destruction, [the text] now refutes this by saying: Since this fire and the firewood arise and perish simultaneously, it cannot serve as the cause of destruction. Just as fire and firewood arise simultaneously, so that fire is not the cause of arising; since it perishes simultaneously with the firewood, how could it serve as the cause of destruction? If one says that the destruction of fire is the cause, then since it arises simultaneously with the firewood, upon arising it should immediately perish; and as we manifestly see that the firewood serves as the basis for the fire, the fire cannot destroy it—how then can one take fire to be the cause of the destruction of firewood? An implicit objection states: If so, what further function do fire and the like have with respect to firewood? Furthermore, since they arise and perish simultaneously, what prevents it from being a cause? Now we reply: It can only serve as the condition for the arising of subsequent transformed states of that [firewood]—this is what is called its function upon the firewood; serving as a condition for destruction is not a function upon the firewood. As the Xianyang states: Light, snow, and vinegar are largely the same.