俱舍論記 8.132

8.132

「以不知故至暫食何咎」者，答。或不知取食、或暫充飢。問：何故化生死無遺形？答：如《正理論》云「化生何故死無遺形？由彼頓生，故應頓滅。如戲水者出沒亦然。毘婆沙師說：化生者，造色多故，死無遺形。大種多者，死非頓滅。即由此義，可以證知一四大種生多造色。」《正理》雖作此說，非《婆沙》正義。故《婆沙》一百二十七云「問：一四大種為但造一造色極微？為能造多？若但造一，如何不成因四果一？因多果小，理不應然。若能造多，即一四大種所造造色有多極微，云何展轉非俱有因？對法者說有對造色展轉相望無俱有因，許則便違對法宗義。答：應作是說，一四大種但能造一造色極微。問：如何不成因四果一？因多果小，理不應然。答：果小因多，理亦無失。世現見有如是類故，因四果一於理無違。有說造多。問：一四大種所造造色有多極微，云何展轉非俱有因？答：非一果故，非俱有因，以俱有因法必同一果故。此不成因，同猶預故。評云：如前所說者好。《婆沙》評家既取前師一四大種但造一色，故知造色多者死無遺形是不正義。

"Because of not knowing [...] what fault is there in temporarily feeding on them?": reply. Either through ignorance they seize them for food, or they temporarily alleviate hunger. Question: Why is it that in apparitional death no bodily remains are left behind? Reply: As the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Why does apparitional birth leave no bodily remains at death? Because it arises instantaneously, it must also perish instantaneously. Just as when sporting in water, emerging and submerging are instantaneous. The Vaibhāṣikas say: In an apparitionally born being, derived matter (*upādāya-rūpa*) is predominant; therefore upon death no bodily remains are left. Where the great elements (*mahābhūta*) are predominant, death does not entail instantaneous destruction. From this principle it can be verified that a single set of the four great elements produces manifold derived matter." Although the *Nyāyānusāra* makes this statement, it is not the definitive view of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 127, says: "Question: Does a single set of four great elements create only one atom of derived matter, or can it create many? If it creates only one, why is it not a case of four causes producing a single effect? That many causes produce a small effect is not logically tenable. If it can create many, then the derived matter created by a single set of four great elements comprises many atoms; why would they not be mutually coexistent causes (*sahabhū-hetu*)? The Abhidharmikas maintain that between derived matter possessing resistance (*sapratigha-upādāya-rūpa*), there is no coexistent cause; to accept this would violate the tenet of Abhidharma. Answer: One should state that a single set of four great elements creates only one atom of derived matter. Question: Why is this not four causes producing a single effect? That many causes produce a small effect is not logically tenable. Answer: That an effect is small and the causes many is not logically faulty. In the world, phenomena of this kind are seen to exist; thus four causes producing a single effect does not contradict reason. Some say that they create many. Question: The derived matter created by a single set of four great elements comprises many atoms; why would they not be mutually coexistent causes? Answer: Because they do not have a single effect, they are not coexistent causes, for dharmas that are coexistent causes must share the same effect. This does not constitute a valid reason, because it is equally open to doubt. Evaluation: What was stated first is sound." Since the evaluators of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* accepted the former master's view that a single set of four great elements creates only one matter-atom, we know that the claim that "derived matter is predominant, therefore death leaves no bodily remains" is not the definitive doctrine.