俱舍論記 1.227

1.227

「乃至識蘊至所說如是」者，釋餘四蘊大同色蘊，而有差別。謂餘四蘊依五根名麁，唯依意根名細。或約九地展轉相形，上細下麁以辨其相。若依《集異門論》解，受等四蘊三世同此論。若在此相續已得不失名內，若在此相續、或本未得、或得已失、若他相續名外。受等四蘊麁細者，或約有尋有伺、無尋有伺、無尋無伺如次觀待，前麁、後細。或約欲、色、無色、不繫如次觀待，前麁、後細。受等四蘊劣、勝者，或約不善、有覆、無覆、有漏善、無漏善如次觀待，前劣、後勝。或約欲、色、無色、不繫如次觀待，前劣、後勝。受等四蘊遠近者，一解同此論。又一解意：若過去非無間滅，若未來非現前起，是名遠。若過去無間已滅，若未來現前正起，名近。

"Up to the consciousness-skandha ... what is stated is like this": explaining that the remaining four skandhas are broadly the same as the matter-skandha, yet there are differences. Namely, the remaining four skandhas supported by the five sense-bases are called coarse, and supported solely by the mental base are called subtle. Or determined according to the nine stages compared with each other, the higher being subtle and the lower coarse, to distinguish their characteristics. If explained according to the *Saṅgītiparyāya-śāstra*, the three times of the four skandhas of feeling and so forth agree with this treatise. If in this continuum, already attained and not lost, they are called internal; if in this continuum, but either originally not attained, or attained and then lost, or in another continuum, they are called external. Regarding the coarseness and subtlety of the four skandhas of feeling and so forth, they are either viewed in the order of with investigation and with reflection, without investigation and with reflection, and without investigation and without reflection, the former being coarse and the latter subtle; or viewed in the order of desire realm, form realm, formless realm, and unattached, the former being coarse and the latter subtle. Regarding the inferior and superior of the four skandhas of feeling and so forth, they are either viewed in the order of unwholesome, obscured, unobscured, sāsrava wholesome, and anāsrava wholesome, the former being inferior and the latter superior; or viewed in the order of desire realm, form realm, formless realm, and unattached, the former being inferior and the latter superior. Regarding distant and near of the four skandhas of feeling and so forth, one explanation agrees with this treatise. Another explanation's intention: if in the past it did not perish immediately contiguously, or if in the future it does not arise in the immediate present, it is called distant; if in the past it has perished immediately contiguously, or if in the future it is just now arising in the immediate present, it is called near.