俱舍論記 27.125

27.125

「如衣嚴具至唯化二處」者，答。身生色界化欲香、味而不成就，無生上界成下香、味。猶如衣服及莊嚴具，雖不離身作而不成就。有說：在色作欲界化，唯化色、觸二處，不化香、味。欲界八微不相離者，據非化者說。又如色界眼根八微不相離，然有身生欲界得色天眼，但得眼根及四大，不得身、色、觸，即有相離時，何妨欲界香、味亦有相離時。問：於二說中何者為正？解云：前說為正。故《婆沙》一百三十五云「問：所化作身幾處所攝？答：若生欲界，作欲界化自身、他身，皆四處攝，謂色、香、味、觸。作色界化自身、他身，皆二處攝，謂色、觸。若生色界，作色界化自身、他身，皆二處攝。作欲界化自身、他身，皆四處攝，如前說。有說：若化他身則四處攝，若化自身唯二處攝，勿彼成就香、味處故。如是說者，雖化香、味無成就失。如人衣服、嚴具、華香，雖復在身而不成就。」問：異界化色、觸皆成就不？解云：皆成就。如《婆沙》一百三十二云「有成就欲界繫大種亦色界繫大種，謂生欲界色界大種現在前，若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。又云：有成就欲界繫大種亦色界繫所造色，謂生欲界得色界善心，若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。又云：有成就欲界繫所造色亦色界繫大種，謂生欲界色界大種現在前，若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。又云：有成就欲界繫所造色亦色界繫所造色，謂生欲界得色界善心，若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。」《婆沙》既言若生色界作欲界化、發欲界語，成就欲界大種及所造色。文不別簡，明知異界化若化自身、若化他身，色、觸二種皆悉成就。義准應知，若即身化、若離身化，亦皆成就。或可若即身化即成就，若離身化即不成就。《婆沙》言成就者，據即身化。雖有兩解，前解為勝。又《婆沙》云「如是說者，離所化身不發化語，語者必由麁四大種相擊起故。」

"As with clothing, ornaments ... they manifest only two āyatanas": this is the answer. When born in the rūpadhātu, one manifests kāmadhātu fragrances and tastes but does not possess (samanvāgama) them, for there is no possessing lower fragrances and tastes when born in an upper realm. It is just like clothing and decorative ornaments, which, although not separated from the body, are produced without being possessed. Some say: When one in the rūpadhātu creates a kāmadhātu apparition, one manifests only the two āyatanas of visible form and tactile objects, and does not manifest fragrance and taste. As for the eight subtle atoms of the kāmadhātu being inseparable, this is stated based on what is not an apparition. Furthermore, just as the eight subtle atoms of the eye faculty in the rūpadhātu are inseparable, yet there are those who, born in the kāmadhātu, attain the divine eye of the rūpadhātu and obtain only the eye faculty and the four primary elements, not obtaining the body, visible form, and tactile objects—thus there is a time when they are separated—so what prevents fragrance and taste in the kāmadhātu from also having a time of separation? Question: Between the two explanations, which is correct? The explanation is: The former explanation is correct. Thus *Mahāvibhāṣā* 135 says: "Question: How many āyatanas subsume an apparitional body? Answer: If born in the kāmadhātu, creating an apparitional body of oneself or another in the kāmadhātu, all are subsumed under four āyatanas, namely visible form, fragrance, taste, and tactile objects. Creating an apparition of oneself or another in the rūpadhātu, all are subsumed under two āyatanas, namely visible form and tactile objects. If born in the rūpadhātu, creating an apparition of oneself or another in the rūpadhātu, all are subsumed under two āyatanas. Creating an apparition of oneself or another in the kāmadhātu, all are subsumed under four āyatanas, as explained before. Some say: If manifesting another's body, it is subsumed under four āyatanas; if manifesting one's own body, it is subsumed under only two āyatanas, lest that [person] possess the āyatanas of fragrance and taste. The definitive view is: Although one manifests fragrance and taste, there is no fault of possession. Just as with a person's clothing, ornaments, flowers, and scents, although they are on the body, they are not possessed." Question: Does one possess the manifested visible form and tactile objects of a different realm? The explanation is: They are all possessed. As *Mahāvibhāṣā* 132 says: "There is one who possesses primary elements bound to the kāmadhātu and also primary elements bound to the rūpadhātu: namely, one born in the kāmadhātu when primary elements of the rūpadhātu are present, or one born in the rūpadhātu who produces an apparition of the kāmadhātu and utters speech of the kāmadhātu. It also says: There is one who possesses primary elements bound to the kāmadhātu and also derived matter (upādāya-rūpa) bound to the rūpadhātu: namely, one born in the kāmadhātu who attains a wholesome mind of the rūpadhātu, or one born in the rūpadhātu who produces an apparition of the kāmadhātu and utters speech of the kāmadhātu. It also says: There is one who possesses derived matter bound to the kāmadhātu and also primary elements bound to the rūpadhātu: namely, one born in the kāmadhātu when primary elements of the rūpadhātu are present, or one born in the rūpadhātu who produces an apparition of the kāmadhātu and utters speech of the kāmadhātu. It also says: There is one who possesses derived matter bound to the kāmadhātu and also derived matter bound to the rūpadhātu: namely, one born in the kāmadhātu who attains a wholesome mind of the rūpadhātu, or one born in the rūpadhātu who produces an apparition of the kāmadhātu and utters speech of the kāmadhātu." Since the *Mahāvibhāṣā* states that if one born in the rūpadhātu creates an apparition of the kāmadhātu and utters speech of the kāmadhātu, one possesses the primary elements and derived matter of the kāmadhātu without making any other distinction in the text, we clearly know that for apparitions of a different realm, whether manifesting one's own body or manifesting another's body, both visible form and tactile objects are completely possessed. By deduction of meaning one should know that whether the apparition is connected to the body or separated from the body, they are likewise all possessed. Or it may be that if the apparition is connected to the body, it is possessed, but if separated from the body, it is not possessed. The *Mahāvibhāṣā*'s statement about possession is based on an apparition connected to the body. Although there are two interpretations, the former interpretation is superior. Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā* says: "The definitive view is: Separated from the apparitional body, apparitional speech is not uttered, because speech necessarily arises from the striking together of the coarse primary elements."