俱舍論記 1.47

1.47

「故稱對法」，此即結也。應知此中能對對勝，且與對名。以實而言，亦名為法持自性故，所對法勝，且與法名。以實而言，亦名為對是所對故，或各舉一邊影略互顯。或據依主，謂法之對故，能對名對、所對名法。若據有財、持業，能、所俱名對法。以此准知，四諦名理對法，涅槃名果對法。頌本偏舉能對，所以不說理果。長行通舉能、所，所以亦言理果。或可影顯。問：何故言對法，不言對有法？若依梵音，何故言阿毘達磨，不言阿毘達磨寐？解云：法是諸法共相，汎生勝解；有法是諸法自相，凡聖常緣，不生勝解。故言對法，不言對有法。然論且約能持釋法。此法、有法，如因明中廣釋。

'Therefore it is called abhidharma': this is the conclusion. One should know that here, the facing [subject] is superior in its facing, and is provisionally given the name 'facing' (abhi). In reality, it is also called 'dharma' because it preserves its own intrinsic nature. The dharma that is faced is superior, and is provisionally given the name 'dharma'. In reality, it is also called 'facing' because it is that which is faced. Alternatively, each mentions one side to elliptically and mutually imply the other. Or, according to a tatpuruṣa compound, it means 'the facing of dharma' (dharmābhimukha); the facing [subject] is called abhi, and the dharma that is faced is called dharma. If according to a bahuvrīhi or karmadhāraya compound, both the facing subject and the faced object are called abhidharma. From this one can infer that the four truths are called the 'abhidharma of principle', while nirvāṇa is called the 'abhidharma of fruit'. The root verses solely mention the facing subject, and therefore do not speak of the principle and fruit. The prose commentary comprehensively mentions both the subject and the object, and therefore also speaks of the principle and fruit. Or it may be understood as an elliptical expression. Question: Why is it called 'facing dharma' (abhidharma) and not 'facing the possessor of dharma' (abhidharmin)? In terms of Sanskrit phonetics, why is it called abhidharma and not abhidharme? Explanation: 'Dharma' is the common characteristic of all phenomena, which generally gives rise to decisive understanding; 'the possessor of dharma' (dharmin) is the individual characteristic of all phenomena, which is constantly taken as an object by both ordinary beings and nobles, without giving rise to decisive understanding. Therefore it is called abhidharma, and not abhidharmin. However, the treatise provisionally explains dharma in terms of preserving [its own intrinsic nature]. These terms 'dharma' (predicate/attribute) and 'dharmin' (subject/possessor of attribute) are explained at length as in Hetuvidyā.