俱舍論記 1.140

1.140

「已說味處至及平等香」者，此別解香。所齅名香。《婆沙》十三亦說四香，與此論同。於四香中，好、惡二類攝香總盡，於二類中有等、不等。《正理》解等、不等香有兩解。第一師云：增益損減依身別故（解云：等謂平等，香力均平增益依身。不等謂太強成損、太弱無益。損減依身，於好惡香中有增損者名等不等，餘者即是無益無損）。第二解云：有說微弱、增盛異故（解云：微劣是等，增盛名不等）。《正理》解本論三香亦有兩解。第一解云：若能長養諸根大種名好香，與此相違名惡香，無前二用名平等香。《入阿毘達磨》亦同此解（解云：從是惡香，但能長養諸根大種亦名好香。縱是好香，若能損減諸根大種亦名惡香。此師意說：但能長養名好香，但能損減名惡香，無長養損減者名平等香）。第二解云：或諸福業增上所生名為好香，若諸罪業增上所生名為惡香，唯四大種勢力所生名平等香。此師約勝、劣、處中以解。又《五事論》云「諸悅意者說名好香，不悅意者說名惡香，順捨受處者名平等香。」解云：約情說故名好、惡等香，論體無記。此與《正理》第二解義亦無違。問：四香、三香各有兩解，如何相攝？解云：《正理》四香中第一解與三香中第一解相攝，增益義當長養，損減義當非長養，無益無損義當平等。三香中好香攝四香中等香，三香中惡香攝四香中不等香，三香中平等香攝四香中好、惡二香。以於好惡二香中，增益者名等香、損減者名不等香，餘不能增益、損減者名好香、惡香，此即義當平等香。又解：三香中好香攝四香中等香全，好、惡香各少分。三香中惡香攝四香中不等香全，好、惡香各少分。三香中平等香攝四香中好、惡二香少分，以四香中好、惡二香攝香總盡，於中離出等、不等香故。三香中等香攝四香中好、惡香各少分。《正理》四香中第二解，與三香中第二解相攝。增盛義當罪福業生，體既增盛故知業感。微劣義當唯大種生，體既微劣故知非親業感，唯大種生。以此微劣、增盛二香攝好、惡盡，故說三香攝四香盡。又解：三香中，若福業增上所生名好香，即攝四香中好香全、不等香中少分。三香中，若罪業增上所生名惡香，即攝四香中惡香全、不等香中少分。三香中，若四大勢力所生香名平等香，即攝四香中等香，以當微劣故。所以四香中別說不等香者，於好、惡香中有增盛者別立。如沈、麝等，是好香中不等香。如葱、韮等，是惡香中不等香故。三香中好、惡二香，各攝四香中不等香少分。

Regarding "Having explained the sense-datum of taste […] up to […] and neutral fragrance": This distinguishes and explains fragrance. What is smelled is called fragrance. Fascicle 13 of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* also speaks of four fragrances, agreeing with this treatise. Among the four fragrances, the two categories of good and bad encompass fragrances exhaustively; within these two categories, there are equal and unequal. The *Nyāyānusāra* gives two explanations for equal and unequal fragrances. The first master says: It is because of differences in benefiting or impairing the supporting physical body. (The explanation says: "Equal" means balanced; the power of the fragrance is balanced and benefits the supporting physical body. "Unequal" means too strong, thereby causing harm, or too weak, thereby having no benefit, impairing the supporting physical body. Among good and bad fragrances, those having benefit or harm are called equal or unequal; the remainder are those with neither benefit nor harm.) The second explanation says: Some say it is because of differences in being weak or intense. (The explanation says: Weak and inferior is equal; intense is called unequal.) The *Nyāyānusāra* also gives two explanations for the three fragrances of the root treatise. The first explanation says: If it can nourish the sense faculties and primary elements, it is called good fragrance; the opposite of this is called bad fragrance; lacking the previous two functions, it is called neutral fragrance. The *Abhidharmāvatāra* also agrees with this explanation. (The explanation says: Even if it is a bad fragrance, as long as it can nourish the sense faculties and primary elements, it is also called a good fragrance. Even if it is a good fragrance, if it can impair the sense faculties and primary elements, it is also called a bad fragrance. This master's intention is: Whatever merely nourishes is called a good fragrance; whatever merely impairs is called a bad fragrance; that which neither nourishes nor impairs is called a neutral fragrance.) The second explanation says: Alternatively, that which is produced predominantly by meritorious karma is called good fragrance; that which is produced predominantly by sinful karma is called bad fragrance; that which is produced solely by the power of the four primary elements is called neutral fragrance. This master explains in terms of superior, inferior, and intermediate. Furthermore, the *Pañcavastuka* says: "Whatever is agreeable is called good fragrance; whatever is disagreeable is called bad fragrance; whatever conforms to neutral feeling is called neutral fragrance." The explanation says: They are called good, bad, and neutral fragrances because they are described in terms of subjective experience; their essential nature in the treatise is ethically indeterminate. This does not contradict the meaning of the second explanation in the *Nyāyānusāra*. Question: The four fragrances and three fragrances each have two explanations; how do they subsume each other? The explanation says: The first explanation among the four fragrances in the *Nyāyānusāra* subsumes and corresponds to the first explanation among the three fragrances: the meaning of benefiting corresponds to nourishing; the meaning of impairing corresponds to non-nourishing; the meaning of neither benefiting nor impairing corresponds to neutral. Good fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes equal fragrance among the four fragrances; bad fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes unequal fragrance among the four fragrances; neutral fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes the two fragrances of good and bad among the four fragrances. Because among the two fragrances of good and bad, that which benefits is called equal fragrance, and that which impairs is called unequal fragrance, while the remainder that can neither benefit nor impair are called good fragrance and bad fragrance; this then corresponds in meaning to neutral fragrance. Another explanation says: Good fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes the whole of equal fragrance among the four fragrances, and a fraction each of good and bad fragrance. Bad fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes the whole of unequal fragrance among the four fragrances, and a fraction each of good and bad fragrance. Neutral fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes a fraction of both good and bad fragrances among the four fragrances. This is because good and bad fragrances among the four fragrances encompass fragrances exhaustively, and from within them equal and unequal fragrances are distinguished. Neutral fragrance among the three fragrances subsumes a fraction each of good and bad fragrances among the four fragrances. The second explanation among the four fragrances in the *Nyāyānusāra* subsumes and corresponds to the second explanation among the three fragrances: the meaning of intense corresponds to arising from sinful and meritorious karma; since its nature is intense, one knows it is karmically retributed. The meaning of weak and inferior corresponds to arising solely from the primary elements; since its nature is weak and inferior, one knows it is not directly karmically retributed, but arises solely from the primary elements. Because these two fragrances—weak-and-inferior and intense—encompass good and bad exhaustively, it is said that the three fragrances encompass the four fragrances exhaustively. Another explanation says: Among the three fragrances, if that which is produced predominantly by meritorious karma is called good fragrance, it then subsumes the entirety of good fragrance among the four fragrances, and a fraction of unequal fragrance. Among the three fragrances, if that which is produced predominantly by sinful karma is called bad fragrance, it then subsumes the entirety of bad fragrance among the four fragrances, and a fraction of unequal fragrance. Among the three fragrances, if the fragrance produced by the power of the four primary elements is called neutral fragrance, it then subsumes equal fragrance among the four fragrances, because it corresponds to being weak and inferior. The reason unequal fragrance is separately stated among the four fragrances is that among good and bad fragrances, those that are intense are separately posited. For instance, aloeswood, musk, and so forth are unequal fragrances within good fragrance; while scallions, leeks, and so forth are unequal fragrances within bad fragrance. Therefore, good and bad fragrances among the three fragrances each subsume a fraction of unequal fragrance among the four fragrances.