俱舍論記 10.168

10.168

「色亦可成至何緣非食」者，問。「此不能益至而無益故」者，答。色不能益自對眼根，色不能益解脫者故。夫名食者，必先資益自所對根及所依大，後乃及餘根所依大。飲噉色時，於自眼根及所依大尚不能益，況能及餘耳等四根并所依大？由諸色根境各別故。飲噉色時，鼻、舌、身根不能取色益根及大。未離欲者有時見色生喜樂者，由緣色故。觸生喜、樂，此是觸食，非色是食。又後二果由離欲故解脫食貪，雖見種種好飲食色，無益身故。若飲噉彼香、味、觸時，能益身故。色、香、味、觸雖俱離貪，見色無益，餘三有益，以此故知色非是食。又解：偏舉後二果者，非但正顯見色非食而無有益，兼顯見色不生喜樂而無有益。又解：色非食者，不至境故不離飢渴，食事不成，雖見不能解除飢、渴。問：於非段食何故唯簡色耶？解云：聲非相續，意法無有分段，眼等五根雖含二義，食中無故、體淨妙故、非飲噉故。此之八種非食義顯，故不別簡。唯色一種相續分段，段食中有可飲噉。故恐濫段食，是故別簡。

Regarding 'Visible form can also be divided into portions [...] for what reason is it not food?': This is the question. Regarding 'This cannot benefit [...] and yet brings no benefit': This is the answer. Visible form cannot benefit its own corresponding eye faculty, nor can visible form benefit those who are liberated. Generally, what is called food must first nourish and benefit its own corresponding faculty and the primary elements it relies upon, and only afterward reach the remaining faculties and their primary elements. When visible form is eaten or drunk, it cannot even benefit its own eye faculty and its primary elements, much less reach the remaining four faculties such as the ear and their primary elements. This is because the spheres of the material faculties are each distinct. When visible form is eaten or drunk, the nose, tongue, and body faculties cannot grasp visible form to benefit the faculties and the primary elements. When those not yet free from desire sometimes see visible form and give rise to joy and pleasure, it is because, conditioned by visible form, tangible contact gives rise to joy and pleasure; this is food of contact, visible form itself is not food. Furthermore, those of the latter two fruits, being free from desire, are liberated from craving for food; although they see the visible forms of various fine food and drink, it brings no benefit to the body. If they eat or drink those odors, tastes, and tangibles, it can benefit the body. Although they are equally free from craving for visible form, odor, taste, and tangibles, seeing visible form brings no benefit, while the remaining three bring benefit; based on this, one knows that visible form is not food. Another explanation: specifically citing the latter two fruits not only directly clarifies that seeing visible form is not food and brings no benefit, but also additionally clarifies that seeing visible form does not give rise to joy and pleasure and brings no benefit. Another explanation: visible form is not food because it does not reach the sensory field, and so it cannot relieve hunger and thirst; the function of food is not accomplished, for although one sees it, it cannot dispel hunger and thirst. Question: Among what is not material food, why is only visible form excluded? The explanation says: sound does not have continuity; mind and mental dharmas have no portions; and although the five faculties such as the eye possess both meanings, because they do not exist among food, because their nature is pure and subtle, and because they are not eaten or drunk, for these eight types the meaning of not being food is obvious, and so they are not separately excluded. Visible form alone has continuity and portions, and within material food it can be eaten or drunk. Therefore, fearing it might be conflated with material food, it is separately excluded.