俱舍論記 1.126

1.126

「或有色處至影光明闇」者，此下明四句。此即初句。問：影、光、明、闇，自體虛疎無有形段，觸非極礙，唯生顯智，理在不疑。青、黃、赤、白必與形俱，如何唯顯初句攝耶？解云：理實無有離形青等。而言青等有顯無形，據生顯智偏強勝說。如新染絹，雖亦有形，以顯新生。生顯智強，故初句攝。此文應言青等一分，以顯形力齊生智等者，俱句攝故。而不說者，略而不論。又：解四洲空中所見顯色，青、黃、赤、白唯顯無形。或可天中青、黃、赤、白四種寶地，如光明等有顯無形，故初句攝。若作此解，形俱顯色及顯新生，皆俱句攝。若依《識身》十一、《婆娑》十三、《正理》三十四，第一句中更加空一顯色。此非正義，以別說故。或是正義，空一顯色，若據本色，青等色攝；若據末色，明色所攝。竝如前解。然別說者，為顯差別。若依《正理》三十四，有一說，第一句中唯說影、光、明、闇。此師意說：青、黃、赤、白無有離形，俱句所攝，非初句收。此即意別。又解：此非正義，諸論皆說青、黃、赤、白初句攝故。又解：是正義，影、光、明、闇決定無形，是故別說。青等不定，若別新生即初句攝，若形俱起即俱句收，故不別說。或可青等有離形者、有附形者，不定不說。

On "There are visual sense-bases […] shadow, radiance, brightness, and darkness": from here down, the four alternatives are explained. This is the first alternative. Question: The intrinsic natures of shadow, radiance, brightness, and darkness are tenuous and diffuse, possessing no configuration or distinct parts, and their touch is not extremely obstructive; they generate only the cognition of colour, so there is no doubt about this logically. But blue, yellow, red, and white must be accompanied by shape; why then are they included only in the first alternative of colour alone? Explanation: In reality, there is no blue or the like apart from shape. When it is said that blue and the like have colour without shape, this is stated because the generation of the cognition of colour is predominantly strong and superior. For example, in freshly dyed silk, although it also has shape, because the colour is newly generated, the generation of the cognition of colour is strong; therefore, it is included in the first alternative. This text should have said "a portion of blue and the like," for where the forces of colour and shape are equal in generating cognition, they are included in the alternative of both. That it does not say so is because it speaks concisely and omits this discussion. Another explanation: The colours seen in the sky across the four continents—blue, yellow, red, and white—are colour alone without shape. Or it may be that the jewel-grounds of four kinds in the heavens—blue, yellow, red, and white—like brightness and radiance, possess colour without shape, and therefore are included in the first alternative. If this explanation is adopted, then colour accompanied by shape as well as newly generated colour are all included in the alternative of both. According to the Vijñānakāya, fascicle 11, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 13, and the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 34, the colour of the dimension of space is further added to the first alternative. This is not the orthodox view, because it is stated separately; or it may be the orthodox view: as for the colour of the dimension of space, if considered in terms of root colour, it is subsumed under colours such as blue; if considered in terms of derivative colour, it is subsumed under bright colour, both as explained before. However, that it is stated separately is to show its distinctness. According to the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 34, there is an opinion that in the first alternative only shadow, radiance, brightness, and darkness are mentioned. This master's meaning is: blue, yellow, red, and white do not exist apart from shape, and are thus included in the alternative of both, not subsumed under the first alternative. This is a different intention. Another explanation: This is not the orthodox view, because all the treatises state that blue, yellow, red, and white are included in the first alternative. Another explanation: This is the orthodox view: shadow, radiance, brightness, and darkness are definitively without shape, and for this reason they are mentioned separately. Blue and the like are not fixed: if newly generated separately, they are included in the first alternative; if arising together with shape, they are subsumed under the alternative of both; hence they are not mentioned separately. Or it may be that among blue and the like, some are separated from shape while others are attached to shape; because they are not fixed, they are not mentioned.