瑜伽論記 14.392

14.392

問：若火非滅因者，即此火所依之薪為亦名薪，為從本為名，名為薪耶？若亦名薪者，薪若未為變可得名薪，既已為火之所變，則是異昔，應不名薪，何得言火與薪俱生俱滅耶？若從本名薪者，此則所燒之薪，實非是薪，云何而言火與彼能為變異生緣耶？若言此初剎那火但與後念等為變異緣不與初念所依為變異緣者，若爾，初念之火應不燒薪，後念之煨常應生火，所依非是薪故？

Question: If fire is not the cause of destruction, is this firewood upon which the fire relies also called firewood, or is it called firewood only derived from its original name? If it is also called firewood: if the firewood has not yet been transformed it may be called firewood, but once it has already been transformed by fire, it is different from before and should not be called firewood; how then can one say that fire and firewood arise and perish simultaneously? If it is called firewood derived from its original name, then this firewood being burned is in truth not firewood; why then say that fire can serve as a condition for the arising of transformation with respect to it? If one says that this fire of the first moment only serves as a condition of transformation for subsequent moments and the like, but does not serve as a condition of transformation for its support in the first moment, then if so, the fire of the first moment should not burn the firewood, and the ashes of subsequent moments should constantly give rise to fire, because what it relies upon is not firewood.