大般涅槃經義記 5.193

5.193

前中初言「有為有二」總以標舉，「色、非色法」別列其名，下辯其相。「非色所謂心心數法」，六識是心，想等是數。「色謂四大」，依如《成實》，色有十四：五根、五塵及以四大。若依《毘曇》，色有十一：五根、五塵及法入中無作之色。今以何義偏說四大？唯依《成實》，大是塵果，復是根因，舉因知果故不說根，舉果知因故不說塵。若依《毘曇》，四大是其造色之本，故偏舉之，舉本收末故不說餘。若依佛陀提婆所立，說色唯四大外更無造色，今說似彼佛陀提婆。

In the former, first saying 'Conditioned [dharmas] are of two kinds' generally indicates them; 'form and non-form dharmas' separately lists their names; below it distinguishes their characteristics. 'Non-form refers to mind and mental factors': the six consciousnesses are mind, and ideation and so on are mental factors. 'Form refers to the four great elements': according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, form is of fourteen kinds—the five sense faculties, five sense objects, and the four great elements. If according to the *Abhidharma*, form is of eleven kinds—the five sense faculties, five sense objects, and unmanifest form included in the dharma-base. Now by what principle does it specifically speak of the four great elements? Relying solely on the *Tattvasiddhi*, the great elements are the effects of the sense objects and are also the causes of the sense faculties; by adducing the cause one knows the effect, so it does not speak of the sense faculties, and by adducing the effect one knows the cause, so it does not speak of the sense objects. If according to the *Abhidharma*, the four great elements are the basis of derived form, and hence it specifically adduces them; adducing the root encompasses the branches, so it does not speak of the rest. If according to what is established by Buddhadeva, he says form is only the four great elements and outside them there is no derived form; what is now stated resembles that of Buddhadeva.