[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 4.11 # 俱舍論記 4.11 俱舍論記 4.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.11) 「以有聲處」下，通伏難。伏難意云：外聲相顯此即可知，內有根處何得有聲？故今通言以有聲處不離根生。謂有執受大種因起，此即正顯不離根聲。又解：內聲相隱所以偏明，外聲相顯故不別說。又解：不說外聲，影顯可知。問：於內身中，聲若新加至十、十一，何故《發智論》云「若成就身，定成就色、聲觸。」又云「身、色、聲、觸界，欲色界成就，無色界不成就。」准彼論文，內有情身恒成就聲，如何此論說聲新加？解云：聲在內身雖定成就相續不斷，非能總遍一切身分。《發智》言成，據一身中相續不斷。此論言無，據身一分不發聲處。各據一義，竝不相違。故《婆沙》九十云「身、色、聲、觸界，欲、色界成就，無色界不成就者，問：身、色、觸界可爾，聲界云何恒時成就？有作是說：大種合離必生聲界。有情若在欲色界中，大種恒有，故常發聲。評曰：彼不應作是說。若四大種必恒生聲，此所生聲何大種造？若即此造，應多有對色一四大種生；若說餘造，餘四大種復必生聲。如是展轉有無窮過。應作是說：生欲、色界有情身中多四大種在一身內，有相擊者便發生聲，不相擊者即無聲起。雖一身中必有聲界，非諸身分皆悉遍發聲（已上論文）。」有古德說：身中遍能發聲，其聲微小。論說無聲，無麁大聲。此解不然，微聚據體，不論小大。此解稍疎。聲若遍身，還同《婆沙》評家所破。問：舊《婆沙》一師云：一切四大必不離色、聲，一切欲界色必不離香味。又一師云：一切四大不必有色、聲，一切欲界色不必有香、味。又於此二說，何者為正？此論復同何說？念法師解云：兩師竝非正義，各取少分方可為正。應言一切四大必不離色，不必有聲。一切欲界色必不離香、味。故《雜心》云「極微在四根十種，應當知身根九，餘八謂是有香味地。」念法師意以《雜心》不說有聲，明知此聲非恒成就。泰法師解云：念法師若作斯釋，此大謬也。《發智》云「誰成就聲持？答曰：欲、色界。」又《雜心》云「無想眾生入十入性。」聲既恒成就，故知《婆沙》初師一切四大必不離色、聲，一切欲界色必不離香、味是其正義。然《雜心》、《俱舍》頌不說聲者，以聲因大種相擊故生，非如色等恒時有故，故《俱舍》別加，《雜心》略而不說。泰法師意說聲既恒成，明知一切四大必不離聲。今詳二德互有是非，念法師解兩師俱是不正，各取少分。應言一切四大必不離色，不必有聲；一切欲界色必不離香、味，此即是。若言非恒成就聲，此即非，以諸論說聲定成就故。泰法師解若言定成就聲，此即是。若言初師為正，一切四大必不離色、聲，此即非，只可定不離色，何得必不離聲？准《婆沙》評家義，有四大種不離聲、有四大種離聲，何得說言一切四大種必不離聲？若言大種皆遍發聲，還同《婆沙》評家所破，故亦非理。 > From 'Because in a place having sound' onward, it resolves an implicit objection. The implicit objection means: external sound has an obvious characteristic, and this can be known; how can there be sound internally where faculties are present? Therefore, it now resolves it by saying that because in a place having sound, it arises without departing from the faculties. That is, it arises caused by the 'appropriated' (upātta) great elements; this directly shows sound that does not depart from the faculties. Another explanation: internal sound is subtle in its characteristic, which is why it is singled out for clarification, whereas external sound has an obvious characteristic, so it is not separately discussed. Another explanation: external sound is not mentioned because it can be understood through implication. Question: In the internal body, if sound is newly added to make ten or eleven, why does the Jñānaprasthāna state: 'If one possesses the body, one definitely possesses visible matter, sound, and tangibility'? And it also says: 'The realms of body, visible matter, sound, and tangibility are possessed in the desire and form realms, but not possessed in the formless realm.' According to the text of that treatise, the bodies of internal sentient beings always possess sound; how can this treatise say that sound is newly added? The resolution is: although sound in the internal body is definitely possessed in unbroken continuum (saṃtati), it cannot generally pervade all parts of the body. The statement of 'possession' in the Jñānaprasthāna is based on its unbroken continuum within a single body. The statement of 'absence' in this treatise is based on a portion of the body where sound is not produced. Each relies on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other at all. Therefore, the ninetieth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'Regarding the statement that the realms of body, visible matter, sound, and tangibility are possessed in the desire and form realms, but not possessed in the formless realm: Question: The realms of body, visible matter, and tangibility may be so, but how can the sound realm be constantly possessed? Some say: The conjunction and disjunction of the great elements definitely produce the sound realm. If sentient beings are in the desire or form realms, the great elements are constantly present, and therefore they constantly produce sound. The critique says: They should not state this. If the four great elements must constantly produce sound, by what great elements would this produced sound be created (bhūta)? If it is created by these very ones, then multiple resistant material entities (sapratigha-rūpa) would arise from a single set of four great elements; if it is said to be created by other \[great elements\], then those other four great elements would again necessarily produce sound. Proceeding in this manner, there would be the fault of infinite regress. One should rather say: In the bodies of sentient beings born in the desire and form realms, many sets of four great elements exist within a single body; when there are those that strike one another, they produce sound, and when there are those that do not strike one another, no sound arises. Although the sound realm is necessarily present within a single body, it is not that all parts of the body universally produce sound (end of treatise text).' An ancient master said: The body can universally produce sound, but that sound is subtle. When the treatise speaks of no sound, it means no coarse, loud sound. This explanation is incorrect; atomic aggregations are based on substance (dravya), irrespective of being small or coarse. This explanation is rather crude. If sound pervaded the body, it would still be identical to what was refuted by the redactor of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Question: One master of the old Mahāvibhāṣā said: All four great elements are definitely not separated from visible matter and sound; all desire-realm matter is definitely not separated from odor and taste. Another master said: All four great elements do not necessarily have visible matter and sound; all desire-realm matter does not necessarily have odor and taste. Furthermore, between these two theories, which is correct, and which theory does this treatise align with? Dharma Master Nian explained: Neither master holds the correct doctrine; each takes only a partial truth before it can be correct. One should say that all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible matter, but do not necessarily have sound. All desire-realm matter is definitely not separated from odor and taste. Therefore the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya states: 'The atom in the four faculties is of ten kinds, one should know; the body faculty has nine, and the other eight are said to belong to the stage having odor and taste.' Dharma Master Nian's meaning is that since the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya does not mention the presence of sound, it clearly knows that this sound is not constantly possessed. Dharma Master Tai explained: If Dharma Master Nian makes this interpretation, it is a great error. The Jñānaprasthāna states: 'Who possesses the retention of sound? Answer: The desire and form realms.' Moreover, the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya states: 'Sentient beings without ideation enter into the nature of the ten sense bases.' Since sound is constantly possessed, we therefore know that the first master of the Mahāvibhāṣā—who holds that all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible matter and sound, and all desire-realm matter is definitely not separated from odor and taste—is the correct doctrine. However, the reason the verses of the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya and the Abhidharmakośa do not mention sound is that sound is produced due to the collision of the great elements, and is not constantly present like visible matter and the like; therefore the Abhidharmakośa adds it separately, while the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya omits it for brevity. Dharma Master Tai's meaning is that since sound is constantly possessed, we clearly know that all four great elements are definitely not separated from sound. Now, examining the two venerable masters, each has right and wrong. Dharma Master Nian's explanation that both masters are incorrect and each takes a partial truth—that one should say all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible matter and do not necessarily have sound, and all desire-realm matter is definitely not separated from odor and taste—this is correct. But if he says sound is not constantly possessed, this is incorrect, because the treatises state that sound is definitely possessed. Dharma Master Tai's explanation that sound is definitely possessed—this is correct. But if he says the first master is correct in holding that all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible matter and sound—this is incorrect; they can only definitely not be separated from visible matter, so how could they necessarily not be separated from sound? Based on the doctrine of the redactor of the Mahāvibhāṣā, there are four great elements that do not depart from sound, and there are four great elements that depart from sound; how can one say that all four great elements are definitely not separated from sound? If one says that all great elements universally produce sound, it still falls under the refutation of the redactor of the Mahāvibhāṣā, and therefore it is also unreasonable. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.10) - [Next: 4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.12) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.4.11) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.11) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.11) · Pramāṇa