俱舍論記 1.127

1.127

「或有色處至身表業性」者，此即第二句。雖有形處必亦有顯，言無顯者，據生形智偏強勝說。如新裁製絹白等物，雖亦有顯，形色新生，生形智勝故，第二句攝。長等一分身表業性，即是新生身表相顯，此中偏說，以實亦通新裁絹等。又解：長等一分即是一切形新生者，如身表業性，此即別指事。若作此兩解，無別新生，顯、形俱者皆俱句攝。又解：即身表業名長等一分，業性暫起生形智勝，故偏說表，不通餘形。故《婆沙》一百二十二云「形可了知非顯者，謂身表色。」若作此解，顯、形俱色及新裁製者皆俱句攝。若依《婆沙》七十五，有一說不立第二句。此非正義，諸論皆說身表業色第二句故。或於正義理亦無違。不立第二句者，以身表邊必有顯故，俱句所攝。以青等色有離形者，故初句攝。此即意別。

On "There are visual sense-bases […] the nature of bodily communicative action": this is the second alternative. Although where there is shape there must also be colour, the statement that there is no colour is made because the generation of the cognition of shape is predominantly strong and superior. For example, in freshly cut and tailored goods such as white silk, although there is also colour, because the shape-colour is newly generated, the generation of the cognition of shape is superior; therefore, it is included in the second alternative. "A portion of long and the like, which is the nature of bodily communicative action" means that newly generated bodily communication is manifest in appearance; this is stated particularly here, though in reality it also extends to freshly cut silk and the like. Another explanation: "A portion of long and the like" refers to all newly generated shapes, such as the nature of bodily communicative action; this is specifically pointing to a concrete instance. If these two explanations are adopted, then where there is no separate new generation, those possessing both colour and shape are all included in the alternative of both. Another explanation: It is bodily communicative action itself that is called "a portion of long and the like"; because the nature of the action arises temporarily, the generation of the cognition of shape is superior, so communication is spoken of particularly, not extending to other shapes. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 122, says: "That which is known as shape and not as colour is bodily communicative form." If this explanation is adopted, then forms having both colour and shape, as well as freshly cut and tailored goods, are all included in the alternative of both. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 75, there is an opinion that does not establish the second alternative. This is not the orthodox view, because all treatises state that bodily communicative form belongs to the second alternative. Or, it also does not contradict the orthodox view: the second alternative is not established because beside bodily communication there must be colour, so it is included in the alternative of both; and because colours such as blue can exist apart from shape, they are included in the first alternative. This is a different intention.