俱舍論記 1.251

1.251

「何故無為至例應成失」者，此即明無為非蘊，問及答也。總有三解：一明無為非蘊中攝，不可積聚，故非第六。又解：亦不可說下，通伏難。伏難云：若非五蘊，何故不說為第六蘊？為通此伏難，故言亦不可說為第六蘊，無為之法非如色等可積聚故。二明蘊是染、淨二依。依是因義，無為不爾，故不立蘊。三明無為是蘊息處、非蘊。息謂滅處，如瓶破滅處，非瓶。論主許前二解，不許第三，故言「彼於處、界，例應成失」。若便蘊息名無為，無為非蘊攝，處、界息故名無為，無為非是處、界攝。《正理》救云「若於是處，蘊相都無，名為蘊息。三無為上，聚義都無，可言蘊息。非門、族義於彼亦無，故不應例。」若俱舍師破云：若言無為無聚義者，與我此論初解何殊？

Regarding [the text from] “For what reason are the unconditioned …” to “… would by analogy turn out to be flawed,” this clarifies that the unconditioned are not skandhas, consisting of question and answer. There are altogether three explanations. The first clarifies that the unconditioned are not included among the skandhas because they cannot be accumulated; hence there is no sixth [skandha]. Another explanation: [the text] below, “nor can they be stated [to be a sixth skandha],” resolves a latent objection. The latent objection states: If they are not the five skandhas, why are they not stated to be a sixth skandha? To resolve this latent objection, it therefore says that they also cannot be stated to be a sixth skandha, because unconditioned dharmas cannot be accumulated like form and the rest. The second [explanation] clarifies that the skandhas are bases for both defilement and purification. “Basis” has the sense of cause; the unconditioned are not like that, so they are not established as skandhas. The third [explanation] clarifies that the unconditioned are the cessation of the skandhas, not skandhas themselves. “Cessation” means the locus of cessation, just as the locus where a jar is broken and destroyed is not the jar. The author of the treatise accepts the former two explanations and does not accept the third; therefore he says, “that would by analogy turn out to be flawed regarding the āyatanas and dhātus.” If it were the case that the cessation of skandhas is termed unconditioned and thus the unconditioned are not included in the skandhas, then because they are the cessation of āyatanas and dhātus they would be termed unconditioned, and the unconditioned would not be included in the āyatanas and dhātus. The Nyāyānusāra defends [this third explanation], stating: “If it is a locus in which the characteristics of skandhas are entirely absent, it is called the cessation of skandhas. Upon the three unconditioned, the meaning of accumulation is entirely absent, so one may speak of the cessation of skandhas. It is not that the meanings of ‘door’ and ‘clan’ are also absent in them; therefore one should not draw an analogy.” If the master of the Kośa were to refute this, he would say: If you say that the unconditioned lack the meaning of accumulation, how does that differ from the first explanation of our treatise?