俱舍論記 2.30

2.30

Regarding the passage: "Other masters say […] therefore they do not exist there," this recounts a variant explanation from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. It means that while abiding in this Kāmadhātu, relying on those four dhyānas, one gives rise to equipoise; one generates the divine eye to see the visible form of higher realms, and generates the divine ear to hear the sounds of higher realms. Pliancy (praśrabdhi) refers to pliancy among the great wholesome mental factors (mahā-kuśala-bhūmika); its function is superior in absorption, so it is separately designated by name. Because tangible sensations occur at the same time as pliancy, it says "arising together." The "extraordinary tangible sensations" are the primary elements (mahābhūta) of Rūpadhātu. Although the body of Kāmadhātu cannot apprehend the tangible sensations of a higher realm, because tangible sensations circulate within the body, they can sustain and benefit the body. Since one whose body is in Kāmadhātu is able to see visible form of that level, hear sounds of that level, and give rise to tangible sensations of that level, these three still follow along upon taking rebirth in that dhyāna. Odors and tastes are not like this; therefore they do not exist there. Another explanation: Pliancy refers to bodily pliancy, which is delicate and smooth touch or light touch; because it occurs at the same time as the two supernormal knowledges (abhijñā), it says "arising together." It can sustain and benefit the body; although visible form and sound are common to both Kāmadhātu and Rūpadhātu, the pliancy induced is only of Kāmadhātu, because it benefits the Kāmadhātu body. Because these three accompany one another in Kāmadhātu, upon being born in Rūpadhātu one is also endowed with the three kinds. Yet another explanation: Pliancy refers to the pliancy among mental factors. "Arising together" means that the extraordinary tangible sensation of Kāmadhātu that is induced and generated arises together with pliancy. According to the *Nyāyānusāra*, which does not refute this, it is indeed a variant explanation from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. However, Vasumitra, in the commentary on the *Kośa*, says this is the explanation of Śrīlāta. That master's intent was to say: only upon entering absorption is there pliancy, or that it is the wind of pliancy. The reason the *Nyāyānusāra* does not refute it is that in its phrasing it does not contradict [the doctrine], hence it does not refute it.