俱舍論記 14.153

14.153

「語表為體」者，答。此據自性，語表為體。若并眷屬，五蘊為體。故《正理》三十八云「此中能歸，語表為體，自立誓限為自性故。若并眷屬，五蘊為體，以能歸依所有言說，由心等起非離於心。」問：若以語表為能歸體，即與《婆沙》評家相違。如《婆沙》三十四云「能歸依者，有說名等，有說是語業，有說亦身業，有說是信。應作是說：是身、語業，及能起彼心、心所法，並諸隨行，皆如是善五蘊是能歸依體。應作是說，是《婆沙》評家義。此《俱舍》等，當《婆沙》第二師不正義。如何會釋？解云：論者意異，隨樂說故，非以婆沙評家為量，無勞會釋。又解：世親論主故述《婆沙》不正義，誡後學徒為覺不覺。眾賢尊者不覺斯文，還依此釋。若依正解，同《婆沙》評家。

Regarding "It takes vāg-vijñapti as its entity": The answer. In terms of intrinsic nature, it takes vāg-vijñapti as its entity. If taken together with its retinue, it takes the five skandhas as its entity. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 38, says: "Here, that which takes refuge has vāg-vijñapti as its entity, because making a personal commitment is its intrinsic nature. If taken together with its retinue, it has the five skandhas as its entity, because all spoken words of taking refuge arise from the mind and are not separated from the mind." Question: If vāg-vijñapti is taken as the entity of that which takes refuge, this contradicts the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. For the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 34, says: "As for that which takes refuge, some say it is names and so forth; some say it is vocal action; some say it is also bodily action; some say it is faith. It should be stated thus: it is bodily and vocal action, the mind and mental factors that give rise to them, together with their concomitants—all such wholesome five skandhas are the entity of that which takes refuge. 'It should be stated thus' represents the position of the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*." This *Kośa* and the like correspond to the non-definitive doctrine of the second master in the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. How is this reconciled? The explanation says: The treatises have different intentions, spoken according to their preference, and do not take the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* as the standard; there is no need for reconciliation. Another explanation: The author, Vasubandhu, deliberately stated the non-definitive doctrine of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* to test whether later students would notice it or not. Venerable Saṃghabhadra did not notice this passage and followed this explanation. If one relies on the correct interpretation, it agrees with the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*.