俱舍論疏 1.162

1.162

論「若爾身表中亦應有顯智」，論主難絕。若生二智故名亦顯亦形，身表亦應生二智也。《婆沙》七十五「一師云：二十色內八，有顯無形，謂青、黃、赤、白、影、光、明、闇；餘十二色有顯有形。」此師意說，有形必有顯，自有顯無形。有一師四句與此論同，第四句取空界色非形非顯，以恒被明、闇覆故。此之四句非是正義。正義空界明、闇為體，理合是顯非形。然此四句所明長等，是假聚長等，非實極微，此長等聚必有形、顯二微故。言亦形亦顯，非長等微亦是顯也。此之四句，依色處作四句。《正理》三十四「一說云：香、味、觸及無表色為第四者，依色蘊作四句。聲非恒故，不入俱非。就蘊以明，非是正義，此中明色處故。問：水鏡等中所有影像，為是實有？非實有耶？譬喻者說：此非實有。所以者何？面不入鏡、鏡不在面，如何鏡上有面像生？阿毘達磨諸論師云：此是實有。是眼所見，眼識所緣色處攝故。問：面不入鏡、鏡不在面，云何實有？答：生色因緣有多種理，故彼非難。如緣月光月愛珠器得有水生，非不實有。彼所生水，有水用故（云云。多喻）。谷響有二說，譬喻者以剎那滅不至谷，故無。諸論師云：生耳識，故有。問：此像色，二十種中是何色攝？答：此是二十種像色，非二十種攝。」由此，《婆沙》七十五釋二十色已，別明像色。或即彼本色攝，青等像即入青等攝，不可將其本色難於像色，障光生等釋本色故。形顯分者，差別說，像色即是顯收。若從本質，亦通形攝，此明像故。不可以本形為難，《正理》有文，言顯色者，像本別說。

Regarding the treatise text: "If so, bodily intimation should also produce cognition of color": the author of the treatise puts forward an irrefutable objection. If producing two cognitions is the reason [an entity] is said to be both shape and color, then bodily intimation should also produce two cognitions. In fascicle 75 of the Vibhāṣā: "One master says: Among the twenty colors, eight have color but no shape—namely blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness; the remaining twelve colors have both color and shape." This master's intended meaning is that where there is shape, there must be color, whereas there can be color without shape. Another master presents a tetralemma identical to that of this treatise, taking the matter of the element of space as the fourth alternative (neither shape nor color), because it is constantly obscured by brightness and darkness. This tetralemma does not represent the orthodox position. In the orthodox position, the element of space takes brightness and darkness as its essence; logically it should be color and not shape. However, the long and so forth explained in this tetralemma are nominal aggregations of long and so forth, not real atoms; for such an aggregate of long and so forth necessarily contains atoms of both shape and color. Thus it is said to be both shape and color, not that an atom of length and so forth is itself also color. This tetralemma is formulated with respect to the sense-base of form. In fascicle 34 of the Nyāyānusāra: "One explanation says: Smells, tastes, tangibles, and non-intimation form constitute the fourth alternative." This is a tetralemma formulated with respect to the aggregate of form (rūpaskandha). Because sound is not constant, it is not included in "neither of the two." Formulating it with respect to the skandha is not the orthodox position, because here it is the sense-base of form that is being clarified. Question: Are the reflected images appearing in water, mirrors, and so on real entities, or are they not real entities? The Dārṣṭāntikas say: These are not real entities. Why? The face does not enter the mirror, and the mirror is not on the face; how could an image of the face be produced upon the mirror? The Abhidharma masters say: This is a real entity. It is seen by the eye and is subsumed under the sense-base of form as an object of visual consciousness. Question: If the face does not enter the mirror and the mirror is not on the face, how can it be a real entity? Answer: The causes and conditions that produce form involve many logical principles, so this is not a valid objection. For example, relying on moonlight, a moonstone vessel can produce water; this is not unreal. The water produced therein has the function of water (and so on; there are many analogies). Regarding echoes in a valley, there are two explanations. The Dārṣṭāntikas hold that because it perishes moment by moment and does not travel to the valley, it does not exist. The masters say: Because it produces auditory consciousness, it exists. Question: Among the twenty kinds of form, under which kind of form is this reflected form subsumed? Answer: This is twenty kinds of reflected forms; it is not subsumed under the [basic] twenty kinds. For this reason, after fascicle 75 of the Vibhāṣā explains the twenty colors, it separately clarifies reflected form. Alternatively, it is subsumed under its original form: the reflection of blue and so forth is subsumed under blue and so forth. One cannot raise an objection against the reflected form based on its original form, because blocking light, being produced, and so forth explain the original form. Distinguishing shape and color: differentially speaking, reflected form is included under color. If viewed in terms of its underlying archetype, it also extends to shape, but here we are clarifying the reflection. One cannot raise an objection based on the original shape. The text of the Nyāyānusāra states that what is called color is explained separately in terms of the reflection and the original.