[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 1.290 # 俱舍論記 1.290 俱舍論記 1.290 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.290](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.290) 「彼六界中至七心界攝」者，攝彼六界。如文可知。問：無為無用可非生依，餘有為法何故不說，但標六界？解云：四大及空，五法中色法攝，識是心法攝，色、心二種諸部極成，是故偏說。心所有法、不相應行，即非極成。如覺天說心所是假，經部說不相應行是假，是故不說。問：色十一中，何故偏說色、觸，不言餘九？解云：眼等四根初生即無，身根雖有無發識能，聲疎轉故於生用劣。香、味欲界雖有，上界即無。無表有、無不定，於生無用。唯色、觸二有體有用，故偏說之。問：何故色中唯說空界，觸中唯說大種？解云：空界定有始，從初生乃至命終恒持生故，所以偏說。青、黃等色有無不定，非恒有故，是故不說。四大是強必定恒有，是故偏說。澁、滑等觸有無不定，非恒有故，是故不說。又解：一切諸法總有二種，一者色法、二者無色法。色法中強謂四大種，是故偏說。無色中強所謂心王。空界雖是所造，除疑故說。謂或有疑：初受生時有空界不？佛為除疑，故說空界。於初受生，此定有故。又《婆沙》七十五云「問：置本論師。世尊何故十八界中略出少分施設六界？彼論解云：愚少分者為說六界，愚一切者為說十八界。又云：為利根者說六界，為鈍根者說十八界。又云：為樂略者說六界，為樂廣者說十八界。」又云「復次於十八界為略現門，故說六界。謂十八界中有是色、有非色。若說前五界，當知已說諸是色界。若說識界，當知已說諸非色界。」廣如彼釋。 > Regarding "Among those six elements... \[up to\] ...subsumed under the seven mind-elements": this subsumes those six elements. It can be known from the text. Question: Asaṃskṛta dharmas lack functioning and may reasonably not be supports for life, but why are the remaining saṃskṛta dharmas not spoken of, and only the six elements designated? Solution: The four great elements and space are subsumed under material dharmas among the five categories of dharmas, while consciousness is subsumed under mental dharmas; form and mind are mutually acknowledged by all schools, therefore they are specifically spoken of. Mental factors (caitasika) and conditioned dharmas non-concurrent with mind (cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra) are not universally established. For instance, Buddhadeva says that mental factors are provisional, and the Sautrāntika says that non-concurrent formations are provisional; therefore they are not mentioned. Question: Among the eleven material dharmas, why are only visible matter and tangible objects specifically spoken of, and the remaining nine not mentioned? Solution: The four faculties of the eye and so forth are absent at initial conception; though the body faculty is present, it lacks the capacity to generate consciousness; sound arises only intermittently, so its function in life is inferior; odors and tastes exist in the desire realm but are absent in the higher realms; non-informative matter (avijñapti) is indefinite in its presence or absence, having no function in life. Only visible matter and tangible objects have both substantiality and function; therefore they are specifically spoken of. Question: Why is it that within visible matter only the cavity-element is spoken of, and within tangible objects only the great elements? Solution: The cavity-element definitely exists from the beginning, constantly sustaining life from initial birth until the end of life; therefore it is specifically spoken of. Colors such as blue and yellow are indefinite in their existence and non-existence, not being constantly present; therefore they are not spoken of. The four great elements are strong and definitely constantly present; therefore they are specifically spoken of. Tangibles such as roughness and smoothness are indefinite in their existence and non-existence, not being constantly present; therefore they are not spoken of. Another solution: All dharmas are of two kinds in total: first, material dharmas; second, immaterial dharmas. What is strong among material dharmas refers to the four great elements; therefore they are specifically spoken of. What is strong among immaterial dharmas refers to the primary mind. Although the cavity-element is derived matter, it is spoken of to remove doubt; that is, there may be doubt as to whether there is a cavity-element at the time of initial conception; the Buddha spoke of the cavity-element to remove doubt, because at initial conception, this definitely exists. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 75, states: "Question: Setting aside the author of the treatise, why did the World-Honored One briefly excerpt a small portion from the eighteen elements to designate the six elements? That treatise explains: For those confused about a small portion, he spoke of the six elements; for those confused about all of them, he spoke of the eighteen elements. Furthermore, it says: For those of sharp faculties he spoke of the six elements, and for those of dull faculties he spoke of the eighteen elements. Furthermore, it says: For those who delight in brevity he spoke of the six elements, and for those who delight in detail he spoke of the eighteen elements." It also says: "Furthermore, to present a concise framework for the eighteen elements, he therefore spoke of the six elements. That is, within the eighteen elements, some are material and some are non-material. If one speaks of the first five elements, one should know that all that are material elements have already been spoken of. If one speaks of the consciousness-element, one should know that all that are non-material elements have already been spoken of." It is broadly explained as in that text. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.289](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.289) - [Next: 1.291](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.291) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.1.290) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.290](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.1.290) · Pramāṇa