俱舍論記 2.64

2.64

Regarding "Visible matter, odor, taste, and tangibles... yet are non-appropriated": Visible matter, odor, taste, and tangibles residing in the present tense are differentiated from past and future; being inseparable from the five faculties, they are differentiated from what is separated from the faculties; hence they are called appropriated. If they reside in the present but are not inseparable from the faculties, or are in the past or future, they are called non-appropriated. Such as within the present body, excluding hair, bodily hair, nails, and teeth that are conjoined with the faculties, other hair, bodily hair, nails, teeth, along with feces and so forth that are not conjoined with the faculties, as well as external inanimate visible matter, odor, taste, and tangibles—although they are in the present, they are non-appropriated. Question: If this treatise says that blood is non-appropriated, why does fascicle one hundred thirty-eight of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* state: "Question: Among the thirty-six impure substances in this body, how many are appropriated and how many are non-appropriated? Answer: The roots of hair, bodily hair, nails, and teeth are appropriated, the remainder are non-appropriated. Skin, bile, brain, and blood are appropriated when living, and non-appropriated when decayed. Bone, flesh, sinew, vessels, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, liver, intestines, stomach, membrane, fat, marrow, brain, bladder, and the receptacles of digested and undigested food are all appropriated. Grease, pus, phlegm, fluids, mucus, saliva, tears, sweat, feces, urine, and dirt are all non-appropriated"? According to the *Mahāvibhāṣā* text, blood admits of two kinds; why then does this treatise say it is non-appropriated? Explanation: This treatise speaks based on decayed blood being non-appropriated, whereas the *Mahāvibhāṣā* also speaks with reference to living blood, so it admits of both kinds.