俱舍論記 27.29

27.29

「如是身力至離七外別有」者，釋第四句。此中兩說：一說力是所觸中大種差別，若大種勝即名為力，異餘大種故名差別。有說力是所造觸，離七外別有力觸。此非正義。又《婆沙》三十辨身力身劣中總有五說：一說四大無偏增，強勝名身力，羸弱名身劣。第二說地增名身力，水增名身劣。此說大種增。第三說重增名身力，輕增名身劣。第四說離七所造觸外別有所造觸，名身力、身劣。第五評曰：應作是說，即四大種及所造觸，俱是身力、身劣自性。謂若調和俱名身力，若不調和俱名身劣。《正理》意同《婆沙》。《俱舍》初說當《婆沙》初說，第二說當《婆沙》第四說。《俱舍》既無評家，即以《婆沙》第五評家為正。又解：《俱舍》非以《婆沙》評家為量。若作此解，以初師為正。又解：《俱舍》言力是所觸中大種差別者，是經部義。彼宗觸中大種是實，餘皆是假，依大種立故。今說力是大種差別，論主意朋經部，故敘彼宗。此解似勝。

"Such bodily power... exists separately outside the seven" explains the fourth line. Here there are two explanations: One explanation says that power is a distinction among the great elements within the tangible; if the great elements are superior, it is called power, and being different from other great elements, it is called a distinction. Another says that power is a derived tangible, and that apart from the seven [primary tangibles] there is a distinct power-tangible. This is not the orthodox doctrine. Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 30, distinguishes bodily power and bodily weakness in five explanations overall: One says that when the four great elements have no bias in excess, what is robust and superior is called bodily power, and what is feeble and weak is called bodily weakness. The second says that an excess of earth is called bodily power, and an excess of water is called bodily weakness; this speaks of an excess of the great elements. The third says that an excess of heaviness is called bodily power, and an excess of lightness is called bodily weakness. The fourth says that apart from the seven derived tangibles, there is a separate derived tangible called bodily power and bodily weakness. The fifth provides the critical evaluation: It should be stated thus—both the four great elements and the derived tangibles are themselves the essential nature of bodily power and bodily weakness. When harmonious, both are called bodily power; when discordant, both are called bodily weakness. The intent of the *Nyāyānusāra* agrees with the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. The first explanation of the *Kośa* corresponds to the first explanation of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, and the second corresponds to the fourth of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. Since the *Kośa* has no critical evaluation of its own, it takes the fifth, the critical evaluator of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, as orthodox. Another solution: The *Kośa* does not take the critical evaluation of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* as standard. If one adopts this solution, the first master is taken as orthodox. Another solution: The *Kośa*'s statement that power is a distinction among the great elements within the tangible is the Sautrāntika position. In their school, among the tangibles, the great elements are real, and the rest are merely nominal, established based on the great elements. Now stating that power is a distinction among the great elements, the treatise master's intention leans toward the Sautrāntika, and therefore he records their school's view. This solution seems superior.