瑜伽論記 14.400

14.400

若謂火等為滅助伴，方能滅者等者，景云：外人復云：火等為助滅，滅相為正滅。今即復遮火及滅相，若謂薪等滅相正滅火為助滅者。若爾，燈電心法滅時，既無火助，應不得滅。外人救云：生諸法因功能各別，滅諸法因功能亦別，是故不可例彼電等火助方滅。故今牒非，若謂生彼有別別功能，此差別不可得，故不應理，應立量云：薪等滅時非用火助，滅義等故，猶如燈電。若謂火為助滅滅相正滅如此二種於一薪處皆有滅功能，即應火於薪處有助滅功能無正滅能，滅相於薪有正滅能無助滅能。若於彼薪火有助滅，滅相正滅，薪可得滅故，噵俱於兩分有滅功能。又復此火無其正滅滅相亦無，如火助滅薪不應滅，故言或無功能有過失故。

Regarding 'If it is asserted that fire and the like are auxiliary factors to destruction, and only then can destruction occur,' and so forth, Jing says: The opponent further says: 'Fire and the like are auxiliary destruction, while the characteristic of destruction is the primary destruction.' Now this refutes both fire and the characteristic of destruction: if it is asserted that the characteristic of destruction is the primary destruction of firewood and the like while fire is the auxiliary destruction, then when lamp flame, lightning, and mental phenomena perish, since there is no assistance from fire, they should not be able to perish. The opponent rescues [his position], saying: 'The causes that give rise to phenomena have distinct capabilities, and the causes that destroy phenomena also have distinct capabilities; therefore one cannot extrapolate to them [by saying] that lightning and the like require the assistance of fire before they can perish.' Therefore [the text] now cites and rejects this: if it is asserted that in giving rise to them there are distinct capabilities, such a distinction cannot be found; hence it is not reasonable. One should establish the syllogism: When firewood and the like perish, they do not use the assistance of fire (thesis), because the meaning of destruction is identical (reason), just like lamp flame and lightning (example). If one asserts that fire is the auxiliary destruction and the characteristic of destruction is the primary destruction, so that both kinds have the capability of destruction in the single locus of firewood, then fire in the locus of firewood would have the capability of auxiliary destruction but lack the capability of primary destruction, and the characteristic of destruction in firewood would have the capability of primary destruction but lack the capability of auxiliary destruction. If with respect to that firewood fire has auxiliary destruction and the characteristic of destruction has primary destruction, firewood could perish; hence it is said that both have the capability of destruction in their two respective parts. Furthermore, if this fire lacks primary destruction, the characteristic of destruction also lacks it; like fire's auxiliary destruction, the firewood should not perish; hence it is said, 'or there is the fault of lacking capability.'