俱舍論記 4.65

4.65

「有如經說至得名無失」者，經部答言有。「如經」已下，引經出例。喜是喜受，順喜法即是與喜相應、俱有等法，皆名喜覺支。瞋謂瞋恚，瞋因緣即是瞋相應、俱有等法，皆名瞋恚蓋。慧蘊剋性但攝正見，而攝思惟及正勤者，隨順慧故，亦攝思、勤故，身輕觸能順覺支心輕安故，得名覺支亦無有失。《正理》救云「有作是言：此中既說身輕安故，非唯心所說名輕安。此言非理，受等亦應同此說故。然五識身相應諸受，說名身受。有作是說：設有輕安體非心所，然此中說心所法故，不應說彼。以能隨順覺支體故亦名覺支，謂身輕安能引覺支心輕安故。亦見餘處瞋及瞋因名瞋恚蓋，見、思惟、勤名為慧蘊。雖彼瞋因、思惟及勤非瞋非慧，然順彼故亦得彼名，此亦應爾。」解云：一有作是言下，敘經部說總非，以受例破。見有身輕安，即說輕安非心所。既說有身受，應有身受非心所。然有五識相應名身受是心所，亦應五識相應名身輕安是心所。此有何失？二有作是說下，敘自異說，縱破經部。設許輕安非是心所，此正辨心所法，故不應說彼。三以能隨順下，引例自釋。身輕安雖是有漏，五識相應為因，能引無漏覺支心輕安故，是即身輕安是因、心輕安是果，因從果目總名覺支。雖立身輕安是心所不同經部，引經釋順其文不別。若作俱舍師救第一身受難云：輕安之名通非心所，故身輕安得名輕觸。受是領納，唯局心所，不得身受通非心所。救第二縱破云：輕安之名通於二種，或是心所、或是輕觸。為簡差別，於心所中說亦何苦。救第三身輕觸是覺支云：我說身輕安觸與入定心輕安，同時能引能順。望彼有力，可得相從，說名覺支。汝說身輕安，五識相應唯在散位，引後定心輕安起時，前後隔遠，如何相順可立覺支？如身欲界將入聖道，先起五識，次起生得，次聞，次思，次修，後方入聖。起心輕安時分即遠，如何相順？故不可說為覺支也。論主意朋經部，所以此論文中絕救敘經部釋。若依經部，許有心輕安而無別體，即思差別唯定心有，於散即無，五識相應理即非有。若身輕安是輕安風觸，若說一切有部宗輕安通六識，五識相應唯有漏、唯散位，意識相應通漏、無漏，通定及散。

Regarding "There are, as the sūtra says, ... and therefore its gaining the name is not flawed": The Sautrāntika answers that there are. From "as the sūtra" onwards, it cites a sūtra to provide an analogy. Joy is the feeling of joy; factors that accord with joy are factors associated with joy, co-arising [with it], and so forth, all of which are called the limb of enlightenment of joy. Hatred refers to ill will; causes and conditions of hatred are factors associated with hatred, co-arising [with it], and so forth, all of which are called the hindrance of ill will. The aggregate of wisdom in its intrinsic nature strictly subsumes only right view, yet subsumes thought and right exertion because they accord with wisdom; thus, it also subsumes thought and exertion. Therefore, because bodily light contact can accord with the limb of enlightenment that is mental pliancy, its gaining the name of a limb of enlightenment is likewise not flawed. The *Nyāyānusāra* rescues [the Sarvāstivāda view], stating: "Some make this statement: 'Since bodily pliancy is spoken of here, it is not only a mental factor that is called pliancy.' This statement is illogical, because feeling and so forth should also be spoken of in this same way. However, feelings associated with the five groups of consciousness are called bodily feelings. Some make this statement: 'Even if there were a pliancy whose essence is not a mental factor, nevertheless, because mental factors are being explained here, that should not be spoken of. It is also called a limb of enlightenment because it can accord with the essence of the limb of enlightenment—namely, bodily pliancy can induce the mental pliancy that is a limb of enlightenment. One also sees elsewhere that hatred and the causes of hatred are called the hindrance of ill will, and that view, thought, and exertion are called the aggregate of wisdom. Although those causes of hatred, thought, and exertion are neither hatred nor wisdom, they nevertheless obtain those names because they accord with them; this should be likewise here.'"

Explaining this: First, from "Some make this statement" onwards, it recounts the Sautrāntika view and completely refutes it, using feeling as an analogy to demolish it: Seeing that there is bodily pliancy, [the Sautrāntika] immediately says pliancy is not a mental factor. Since it is said that there are bodily feelings, there should then be bodily feelings that are not mental factors. However, there are [feelings] associated with the five consciousnesses that are called bodily feelings and are mental factors; likewise, those associated with the five consciousnesses called bodily pliancy should be mental factors. What fault is there in this?

Second, from "Some make this statement" onwards, it recounts an alternative view from its own school, conditionally demolishing the Sautrāntika: Even granting that pliancy is not a mental factor, here we are directly analyzing mental factors, and therefore that [bodily pliancy] should not be spoken of.

Third, from "because it can accord with" onwards, it cites an analogy to explain itself: Although bodily pliancy is sāsrava and associated with the five consciousnesses as a cause, it can induce the mental pliancy that is an anāsrava limb of enlightenment; thus, bodily pliancy is the cause and mental pliancy is the fruit, and the cause is named after the fruit and collectively called a limb of enlightenment. Although establishing bodily pliancy as a mental factor differs from the Sautrāntika, in citing the sūtra to explain this accordance, its text does not differ.

If one were to act as the Kośa Master rescuing against the first objection on bodily feeling, one would say: The name "pliancy" applies generally to what is not a mental factor; therefore bodily pliancy can be called light contact. Feeling is experiencing, and is strictly restricted to mental factors; one cannot have bodily feeling generally applying to what is not a mental factor. Rescuing against the second, conditional demolition, one would say: The name "pliancy" applies to two kinds: it is either a mental factor or light contact. In order to distinguish them, what harm is there in speaking of it among mental factors? Rescuing against the third, that bodily light contact is a limb of enlightenment, one would say: I say that the touch of bodily pliancy and the mental pliancy upon entering concentration simultaneously induce and accord [with each other]. With respect to that [mental pliancy], it is efficacious; thus it can be assimilated to it and called a limb of enlightenment. You say that bodily pliancy, associated with the five consciousnesses, exists only in the state of distraction; when it induces the subsequent pliancy of the concentrated mind to arise, the earlier and later are separated by a great distance—how could they accord so as to establish it as a limb of enlightenment? For example, when a body of the desire realm is about to enter the noble path, first the five consciousnesses arise, next inborn [wisdom] arises, next hearing, next reflection, next cultivation, and only afterwards does one enter the noble [path]. The duration until mental pliancy arises is far removed; how could they accord? Therefore, it cannot be called a limb of enlightenment. The author of the treatise favored the Sautrāntika; thus in this text of the treatise, the Sarvāstivāda rescue is dropped and the Sautrāntika explanation is recounted. If relying on the Sautrāntika, mental pliancy is admitted but has no separate essence: it is a distinction of volition (cetanā) that exists only in a concentrated mind, does not exist in distraction, and by principle does not exist in association with the five consciousnesses. As for bodily pliancy, it is the touch of pliancy-wind. According to the Sarvāstivāda school, pliancy extends across the six consciousnesses: associated with the five consciousnesses, it is strictly sāsrava and strictly in the state of distraction; associated with the mental consciousness, it extends to sāsrava and anāsrava, and extends to concentration and distraction.