俱舍論記 1.219

1.219

「頌曰至是蘊處界義」者，聚義是蘊義，生門義是處義，種族義是界義。梵云塞建陀，唐云蘊，舊譯名陰（於禁反），此陰是陰覆義。若言陰，梵本應言鉢羅娑陀。案陰音應以陰（於今反）陽之陰也。近代諸師竟作異釋，或云：淡聚名淡陰。此釋不然，然醫方說淡飲不言陰。更有異釋，不能具述。若言陰氣萬物所藏，即是聚義。借喻此名，粗可通途。然非正目，故今名蘊。或翻為眾，故《法花》云五眾之生滅。此亦不爾，若言眾，梵本應云僧伽。或翻為聚。此亦不然，若言聚，梵本應云曷邏陀。梵云阿野怛那，唐云處。舊翻為入，此亦不然。若言入，梵本應云鉢羅吠舍。舊經亦有譯為處者，如空無邊處等，及阿練若處，竝與今同。梵云馱都，唐言界，有譯為持。偏據一義，非盡理也。

"The verse says ... are the meanings of skandha, āyatana, and dhātu": the meaning of accumulation (rāśi) is the meaning of skandha; the meaning of door of arising (āyadvāra) is the meaning of āyatana; the meaning of lineage/species (gotra) is the meaning of dhātu. In Sanskrit it is *skandha*, in the Tang [language] it is *yun* (蘊); the old translation was *yin* (陰; read with the falling tone), where this *yin* has the meaning of covering over. If it meant covering over, the Sanskrit text should say *prasāda* [or *chādana*]. Examining the pronunciation of *yin*, it should rather be the *yin* of yin and yang (read with the level tone). Modern masters have competed in proposing different interpretations: some say an accumulation of phlegm is called "phlegm-yin". This interpretation is not so; medical texts speak of "phlegm-drink" (tanyin), not *yin*. There are other divergent explanations that cannot be detailed fully. If one says that the *yin* qi is where the myriad things are stored, that is precisely the meaning of accumulation. Borrowing this term by way of analogy is roughly tenable, but it is not the correct designation; therefore it is now called *yun*. Or it was translated as "aggregate/multitude" (眾); hence the *Lotus Sūtra* speaks of the arising and ceasing of the "five multitudes". This too is not so: if it were *zhong*, the Sanskrit text should say *saṃgha*. Or it was translated as "heap" (聚). This too is not so: if it were *ju*, the Sanskrit text should say *hrada* [or *rāśi*]. In Sanskrit it is *āyatana*, in the Tang [language] it is *chu* (處). The old translation was *ru* (入, entry); this too is not so: if it were "entry", the Sanskrit text should say *praveśa*. Old sūtras also translated it as *chu*, as in "the base of infinite space" (ākāśānantyāyatana) and so forth, as well as "āraṇya base", both of which agree with the present translation. In Sanskrit it is *dhātu*, in the Tang language it is *jie* (界); some translated it as "holding" (持). Relying one-sidedly on a single meaning does not exhaust the principle.