俱舍論記 1.80

1.80

「於略所說至色於中行」者，此中亦應明道聖諦。後文廣解，故今不釋。無為體性，若隨事別體乃眾多，今總標三，故言略說。虛空但以無礙為性，容受一切諸有為法故。《正理論》云「虛空容受色等有為（已上論文）。」雖言容受，而不可說虛空體性在此在彼，無方所故，如眼識等。問：若不礙故說名虛空，空界色性亦不礙他，應名虛空。解云：空界色性雖非能礙，而是所礙，被餘色障而開避故，其體不生。世言虛空者，於空界色說虛空聲。若爾，無表非能、所礙，應名虛空。解云：以從礙生，故亦非例。若爾，心心所法、二無為等，非能、所礙又非礙生，應名虛空。解云：據此義邊亦同虛空，從別立名。虛空但以無礙為性，雖標總稱，即受別名，如色處等。由此虛空無障礙故，能所造色於中行動，以實住等亦據虛空，據顯說行。或行謂生，色於中生。又解：虛空既無方所，不可得言色於中行。而言行者，於空界色中行。空界復由虛空得有。此中解虛空而言空界色者，以麁顯細。問：虛空體亦不礙無色，何故但言色於中行？解云：虛空理亦不礙無色，以色相顯，故偏說之。問：無色之法亦無礙性，如何虛空言不礙無色？解云：無色有為能起作用，虛空不障，名為無礙。

"Among the briefly stated […] form moves within it": here the noble truth of the path should also have been explained. Because it is explained extensively in a later section, it is not explained now. As for the intrinsic nature of the unconditioned, if differentiated according to particular instances, the entities are numerous; here three are summarized, hence it says "briefly stated". Space merely takes unhinderedness as its nature, because it accommodates all conditioned dharmas. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Space accommodates conditioned dharmas such as form (end of quotation)." Although it says it accommodates them, one cannot say that the entity of space is here or there, because it has no spatial location, just like the eye consciousness and so on. Question: If it is called space because it does not obstruct, the matter of the empty dimension (ākāśa-dhātu-rūpa) also does not obstruct others, so it should be called space. Resolution: Although the matter of the empty dimension cannot obstruct others, it is obstructed by others; being blocked by other matter, it gives way, and its entity does not arise. When the worldly speak of space, they apply the sound 'space' to the matter of the empty dimension. If so, unmanifest form (avijñapti-rūpa) is neither that which obstructs nor that which is obstructed, so it should be called space. Resolution: Because it arises from obstructive [elements], it is not analogous. If so, mind, mental factors, the two cessations, and so forth are neither that which obstructs nor that which is obstructed, nor do they arise from obstruction, so they should be called space. Resolution: In terms of this aspect, they are indeed identical to space, but they receive names from specific aspects. Space merely has non-obstruction as its nature; although it bears a general designation, it receives a specific name, just like the form base (rūpāyatana) and so on. Because of this non-obstruction of space, primary and secondary forms move within it; since actually staying and so forth also depend on space, it speaks of "moving" in terms of what is prominent. Or "moving" means arising: form arises within it. Another explanation: Since space has no spatial location, one cannot say that form moves within it. When it says "moves", it moves within the matter of the empty dimension. The empty dimension in turn exists dependent on space. Here, in explaining space, mentioning the matter of the empty dimension uses the coarse to reveal the subtle. Question: The entity of space also does not obstruct the formless; why does it only say that form moves within it? Resolution: In principle, space also does not obstruct the formless; because the characteristics of form are conspicuous, it is mentioned specifically. Question: Formless dharmas are also of an unhindered nature; how can space be said not to obstruct the formless? Resolution: Formless conditioned dharmas are able to initiate activity, and space does not impede them; this is called being unhindered.