俱舍論記 28.90

28.90

「許說身輕安至密意說故」者，經部答言。汝說一切有部亦同許經說身輕安是覺支攝故，何須難我？雖復意說身識相應輕安心所，然身輕安名同經故。汝若謂身輕安實非覺支，順彼覺支名覺支，無漏亦應許如是說，觸及身識順無漏故名為無漏。無少分有漏、少分無漏失。又解：經部師云，我宗許說身輕安觸是覺支攝故。汝若謂身輕安實非覺支，順彼覺支故說覺支。無漏亦應許如是說實非無漏，順無漏故名為無漏，有何違理？汝若謂許說觸及身識是無漏者，便違契經，此經意說十五界全皆有漏故。通云：無違經過。此經意約餘散位觸及餘散位身識密意，說彼十五界全皆是有漏，不約定位。非盡理說，故言密意。

Regarding the passage "Admitting that bodily pliancy is said... because it is spoken with intentional meaning": The Sautrāntika answers, saying: You, the Sarvāstivāda, likewise accept that the sūtra states bodily pliancy is included in the factors of awakening; why then must you challenge me? Even though the intention refers to the mental factor of pliancy associated with body-consciousness, the term "bodily pliancy" is identical to the sūtra. If you claim that bodily pliancy is not actually a factor of awakening, but is called a factor of awakening because it accords with those factors of awakening, then in the case of being untainted it should also be accepted that it is spoken in this way: the tactile sensation and body-consciousness are called untainted because they accord with the untainted. There is no fault of one fraction being tainted and another fraction being untainted. Another explanation: The Sautrāntika master says: Our school admits that the tactile sensation of bodily pliancy is said to be included in the factors of awakening. If you claim that bodily pliancy is not actually a factor of awakening, but is called a factor of awakening because it accords with those factors of awakening, then in the case of being untainted it should also be accepted that it is spoken of as not actually untainted, but called untainted because it accords with the untainted; what contradiction of reason is there? If you claim that admitting the tactile sensation and body-consciousness to be untainted would contradict the sūtra, because the meaning of this sūtra is that the fifteen elements are entirely tainted: The resolution states: There is no fault of contradicting the sūtra. This sūtra speaks with intentional meaning with regard to the tactile object in other, scattered states and body-consciousness in other, scattered states, stating that those fifteen elements are entirely tainted; it does not refer to the state of absorption. It is not an exhaustive, literal statement; hence it is called "intentional meaning."