俱舍論記 1.246

1.246

「然毘婆沙至亦說燒衣」者，論主牒《婆沙》文通釋。婆沙師說：若觀假蘊，彼說一微為一蘊少分。若不觀假蘊觀實蘊，彼說一極微即是一蘊。既許一微即是一蘊，故知《婆沙》許蘊是實。今論主釋，《婆沙》既引經中聚義釋蘊，故應亦許蘊唯是假。而言一微是一蘊者，此應於蘊一分假說有分，全蘊總有別分，故名有分。如衣一分燒，亦說為燒衣。諸後學徒不達《婆沙》本意，說蘊是實，故應如是蘊定是假。然《正理》第三云「於聚所依立義言故，非聚即義。義是實物名之差別，聚非實故（解云：聚之義故名為聚義，依主釋。聚假義實，聚義是蘊）。」又云「又一極微三世等攝，以慧分析略為一聚，蘊雖即聚而實義成。餘法亦然，故蘊非假（解云：此一極微有三世、遠近等義，故名為聚。即聚名義，持業釋）。」又云「又於一一別起法中亦說蘊故，蘊定非假。如說俱生受名受蘊，想名想蘊。餘說如經，於一切時和合生故。蘊雖各別而聚義成（解云：即受蘊等一一皆是可積集相名蘊，持業釋。或受蘊等定與積聚法俱起。且如一微，猶與大小八法俱起）。」《正理》亦應同彼《婆沙》，蘊通假實。為《俱舍》論主說蘊唯假，故且說實。

"However, the Vibhāṣā ... it is also said that the cloth is burned": the author of the treatise takes up the text of the Mahāvibhāṣā and resolves it. The masters of the Vibhāṣā say: If one regards the provisional skandha, they say that a single atom is a minor part of a skandha; if one does not regard the provisional skandha but regards the real skandha, they say that a single atom is itself a skandha. Since they accept that a single atom is itself a skandha, we know that the Mahāvibhāṣā accepts that skandhas are real. Now the author of the treatise explains: Since the Mahāvibhāṣā cites the meaning of accumulation from the sūtra to explain skandha, it must also accept that skandhas are exclusively provisional. As for the statement that a single atom is a skandha, this is a metaphorical attribution of the whole (the possessor of parts) to a part of the skandha; the entire skandha as a whole has distinct parts, hence it is called the possessor of parts. Just as when one part of a cloth is burned, it is also said that the cloth is burned. Later students, failing to comprehend the original intent of the Mahāvibhāṣā, say that the skandhas are real; therefore, as shown, the skandhas are definitely provisional. However, the third fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra states: "Because the word 'meaning' (artha) is established with respect to the basis of the accumulation, accumulation itself is not the meaning. 'Meaning' is an alternative designation for real entities, because an accumulation is not real (explanation: 'meaning of accumulation' means the entity of an accumulation, a genitive tatpuruṣa compound; accumulation is provisional while its entity is real, and the entity of accumulation is the skandha)." It also states: "Furthermore, a single atom is subsumed under the three periods of time and so forth; when analyzed by wisdom, it is summarized as a single accumulation. Although a skandha is an accumulation, its reality is established. The remaining dharmas are also like this; therefore the skandhas are not provisional (explanation: this single atom has the characteristics of the three periods of time, far and near, and so forth, hence it is called an accumulation; 'accumulation' is itself the 'meaning', a karmadhāraya compound)." It also states: "Furthermore, because skandha is also spoken of with respect to each separately arising dharma, skandhas are definitely not provisional. Just as co-arising sensation is called the sensation skandha, and ideation is called the ideation skandha. The rest are as stated in the sūtra, because they arise in conjunction at all times. Although the skandhas are distinct, the meaning of accumulation is established (explanation: that is, sensation skandha and the rest each possess the characteristic of being accumulable, called skandha, a karmadhāraya compound; or, sensation skandha and the rest definitely arise together with accumulated dharmas. For example, a single atom still arises together with the eight major and minor dharmas)." The Nyāyānusāra should also, like the Mahāvibhāṣā, allow that skandhas encompass both provisional and real; but because the author of the Kośa stated that skandhas are exclusively provisional, it temporarily argued that they are real.