大般涅槃經義記 9.178

9.178

第十二門次辨色法是四大造非四大造。先辨諍相。具論有三：一依佛陀提婆所說，色即四大，無別造色。二依《毘曇》，四大是本名為能造，餘青黃等是其所造。此當《毘曇》。三依《成實》，四大是假，色香味觸四塵集成，不造諸色。今此文中偏舉前二，第三不論。諍相如是。次辨道理。四大有二：一實、二假。堅濕煖動四觸為大，名之為實。所依大地河池之水草木火等，攬諸塵成，說為假名。假名四大不造諸色，經論大同。實觸四大望於諸色亦造不造。是義云何？色香味觸同一體性互相集成，如海十相同體相成。所言四大，即四塵中觸塵所收，彼雖同體，隨義別分，四大是本說之為體，餘者是末說之為相。體則如鏡，相則如彼鏡中之像。以同體故，體外無別色法可造，名無造色。此異《毘曇》。體相別故，依體相現名有造色，異於初諍。義既兼通，不可偏取。問曰：四塵同體相成，何故偏說四大為本？釋言：色法以礙為性，以觸對故色性名礙，故以堅濕煖等四觸為諸色本。文中初明說大為色，凡聞起諍。文別有三：一教跋波觀色斷愛。二跋波問色，如來為說四大名色，就本以指。自餘四陰心法難彰，非名不顯，就詮立目說之為名。三明愚人聞之起諍。下說造色，凡聞起諍。「譬如因鏡則有像現」立喻明造。「色亦如是因四大故則有造色」合喻明造。色合彼像，四大合鏡。下列所造。言「麁細」者是所造色，大物名麁、小物稱細。此麁與細，《毘曇》不說。言「澁滑」者是所造觸。「青黃赤白、長短方圓，及與斜角」復是造色。「輕重寒熱及與飢渴」復是造觸。寒者，《毘曇》說之為冷。熱者，《毘曇》造觸中無。當應地大增強為熱，與冷相對。「烟雲塵霧」復是造色。依如《毘曇》，更有高下、光影、明闇、正不正等並是造色，此中略無。「是名」總結。「猶如響像」借喻顯之。能造四大如鏡如谷，所造之色如響如像。下明弟子不解起諍。

The twelfth section next explains whether form dharmas are created by the four great elements or not created by the four great elements. First, to explain the forms of dispute. In full discussion there are three: First, according to what Buddhadeva said, form is just the four great elements, and there is no separate created form. Second, according to the Abhidharma, the four great elements are the root and are called the creators, while the remaining blue, yellow, and so forth are what is created. This belongs to the Abhidharma. Third, according to the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, the four great elements are nominal designations, being an aggregation of the four dusts of form, odor, taste, and tangibility, and do not create forms. Now in this text, it exclusively cites the first two, and does not discuss the third. Such are the forms of dispute. Next, to explain the principle: the four great elements are of two kinds—first, real; second, nominal. The four tangibles of hardness, moisture, warmth, and motion are the great elements, and are called real. The great earth, the water of rivers and ponds, the fire of grasses and trees, and so forth upon which they rely, are formed by gathering the various dusts, and are said to be nominal designations. The nominal four great elements do not create forms; sūtras and treatises generally agree on this. In view of the various forms, the real tangible four great elements also both create and do not create. What does this mean? Form, odor, taste, and tangibility are of the same single nature and form one another mutually, just as the ten marks of the ocean are formed together with the same substance. What are called the four great elements are subsumed under the tangible dust among the four dusts; although they are of the same substance, they are distinguished according to their meaning: the four great elements are the root and are spoken of as the substance, while the rest are the branches and are spoken of as the marks. The substance is like a mirror, and the marks are like the reflections within that mirror. Because they are of the same substance, outside of the substance there is no separate form dharma that can be created, which is called the absence of created form. This differs from the Abhidharma. Because the substance and marks are distinct, the marks appear depending on the substance, which is called the presence of created form; this differs from the first dispute. Since the meaning encompasses both, one must not grasp [one side] exclusively. Question: If the four dusts are of the same substance and form one another, why are the four great elements exclusively said to be the root? Answer: Form dharmas take obstruction as their nature; because of tangible contact, the nature of form is called obstructed; therefore, the four tangibles of hardness, moisture, warmth, and so forth are taken as the root of all forms. In the text, it first clarifies that the great elements are spoken of as form, and ordinary people hear it and raise disputes. The text has three distinct parts: first, instructing Vāppa to contemplate form and cut off craving. Second, Vāppa asks about form, and the Tathāgata speaks to him of the four great elements as form, pointing to them with respect to the root. As for the remaining four aggregates, the mental dharmas are difficult to manifest, and without names they are not made evident; establishing terms with respect to their designation, they are spoken of as 'name' (nāma). Third, clarifying that foolish people hear this and raise disputes. Below, it speaks of created form, and ordinary people hear it and raise disputes. "Just as because of a mirror, a reflection appears" sets up an analogy to explain creation. "Form is also like this: because of the four great elements, there is created form" matches the analogy to explain creation. Form matches that reflection, and the four great elements match the mirror. Below, it lists what is created. The words "coarse and fine" refer to created forms: large things are called coarse, and small things are termed fine. These "coarse" and "fine" are not mentioned in the Abhidharma. The words "rough and smooth" refer to created tangibles. "Blue, yellow, red, white, long, short, square, round, and angular" are again created forms. "Light, heavy, cold, warm, hunger, and thirst" are again created tangibles. As for "cold", the Abhidharma speaks of it as "cool". As for "warm", it is absent from the created tangibles in the Abhidharma. It should correspond to the earth element becoming stronger as warmth, in contrast to cold. "Smoke, clouds, dust, and mist" are again created forms. According to the Abhidharma, there are further high, low, light, shadow, brightness, darkness, straight, crooked, and so forth, which are all created forms, but are omitted here. "These are called" summarizes and concludes. "Just like an echo and a reflection" borrows analogies to reveal it. The creating four great elements are like the mirror and the valley; the created forms are like the echo and the reflection. Below, it clarifies that the disciples do not understand and raise disputes.