成唯識論述記 2.305

2.305

述曰：此中第二、如受非根難。量云：汝所言命根，非實命根；許異識實有故；如受、想等。自命根假，無違宗失，薩婆多師以命能持身，唯業能持命。如經部等無命根者不然，即入無心定，無物持身，及無色界生，起不同分心、無漏心等，便非彼趣，無假命根所依等故。薩婆多以命能持故，即無前過者。

The Commentary states: Here is the second [refutation], the challenge based on [its being] like sensation not being a faculty. The inference is: What you call the life faculty is not a real life faculty; because you accept that it exists as a real entity distinct from consciousness; just like sensation, ideation, and so forth. In our own system the life faculty is nominal, so there is no fault of contradicting our tenet. The Sarvāstivādin masters hold that life can sustain the body, and only karma can sustain life. If, as in the Sautrāntika and others, there were no life faculty, that would not be correct: for when entering the mindless concentration there would be nothing to sustain the body; and when born in the formless realm, if a mind of a dissimilar category or an uncontaminated mind arises, one would not belong to that realm of rebirth, because there would be no basis for a nominal life faculty, and so forth. The Sarvāstivādin holds that because life can sustain [the body], there is no such previous fault.