俱舍論記 12.116

12.116

「又燒毛㲲至不記識故」者，此文亦破離色等外實句義中別有地大。勝論宗執毛㲲、紅花等以實句中地大為體。故今復破，毛隨作何色㲲作白色，紅花赤色。等即等取餘未說者。毛㲲花等若未燒時知是毛等，若被燒已，彼毛等覺則無有故。故毛等覺，但緣青、黃、赤、白色等差別而起。或可等言等香、味、觸。所以者何？毛等被燒、熟變生時同作何色？形量等故，不知何者是毛、是㲲、是紅花等。由此故知，但緣色等差別不同作毛等解，離色等外無別地大為毛等體。又解：毛等被燒熟變生時，形量與前未燒時等。雖形量等，不識毛等，故知但緣顯色等別作毛等解。離顯色等，無別地大為毛等體，猶如地上行伍瓦器相雜而住，記識瓶、盆。非由顯色，以顯同故。但由形色，由形異故。若不觀形差別不同，但看顯色等黃等黑，不記識故。瓶、盆等物離形等外既無別體，應知毛等離顯色等亦無實句地大為體。又解：猶如行伍形色極微為瓶、盆時，由形別故，記識瓶、盆。若不觀形，不記識故。餘解如前。又解：猶如行伍諸穀、麥等或方或圓，離方色等無別有行。若不觀形，不記識故。猶如記識瓶、盆，應知亦爾。離圓色等無別瓶、盆，若不觀形，不記識故。餘解如前。彼勝論宗行及瓶、盆皆無有體，故引極成為今所喻。

Regarding [the text from] “Moreover, burning wool and cotton…” up to “…due to not recognizing them”: this passage also refutes the claim that apart from visible form and so forth there is a distinct earth element in the category of substance. The Vaiśeṣika school adheres to the view that wool, fine cotton, safflower, and so on take the earth element in the category of substance as their substance. Therefore, he now refutes it again: wool is made in whatever color, cotton is white, and safflower is red. “And so on” includes the rest that have not been stated. If wool, cotton, flowers, and so forth have not been burned, one knows they are wool, etc.; if they have been burned, then that conception of wool, etc., does not exist. Therefore, the conception of wool and so forth arises solely with reference to the distinctions of blue, yellow, red, white, and other colors. Or, the word “and so on” includes odor, taste, and tangible. Why is that? When wool and so forth are burned and transformed by cooking, what color do they all take on? Because their shape and size are equal, one does not know which is wool, which is cotton, which is safflower, and so on. From this we know that one conceives of them as wool and so forth solely with reference to the distinct differences of visible form, etc.; apart from visible form and so forth, there is no distinct earth element that serves as the substance of wool and so forth. Another explanation: when wool and so forth are burned and transformed by cooking, their shape and size are the same as before they were burned. Although their shape and size are the same, one does not recognize wool and so forth; therefore we know that one conceives of them as wool and so forth solely with reference to the distinctions of evident color and so forth. Apart from evident color and so forth, there is no distinct earth element that serves as the substance of wool and so forth. It is just like rows of earthenware vessels situated together on the ground: one recognizes pots and basins not by their evident color, because the evident color is identical, but solely by their shape-color, because the shapes are different. If one does not observe the distinctions of shape and looks only at the evident colors being equally yellow or black, one would not recognize them. Since objects such as pots and basins have no distinct substance apart from shape and so forth, one should know that wool and so forth also have no earth element in the category of substance as their substance apart from evident color and so forth. Another explanation: just as when atoms of shape-color in rows form pots and basins, one recognizes pots and basins due to the distinction in shape; if one does not observe the shape, one does not recognize them. The rest of the explanation is as before. Another explanation: just as rows of grains, barley, and so forth are either square or round, apart from the square color and so forth there is no distinct row; if one does not observe the shape, one does not recognize them. It should be known that it is also like recognizing pots and basins: apart from round color and so forth there are no distinct pots or basins; if one does not observe the shape, one does not recognize them. The rest of the explanation is as before. In that Vaiśeṣika school, rows as well as pots and basins all lack substantial reality; therefore, what is universally established is cited as the present simile.