俱舍論疏 1.206

1.206

論「《品類足論》至故亦言輕」，釋違文也。《正理論》云「風界若以動為性」者，何故契經及《品類足論》皆言風界謂輕等動性，復說輕性為所造色？說動為風、輕為造色，是顯自相。輕為風者，舉果顯因，輕是風果故。豈不火界亦是輕因，以說火、風增生輕故。雖有是說，而火不定。若有輕性火增為因，是處必有增盛風界。或有輕性風增為因，而其中無增盛火界，如葦等花飄舉輕性。此中火界若增盛者，其中應有熱觸可得。由此風界遍為輕因，故別舉輕偏顯風界。然地等相易可了知，故不須說。重等果顯，對堅等三，動難了故，此中舉果顯因。輕八轉聲中業聲。八轉聲者，一體，謂直詮法體。二業，謂所作事業。三具，謂作者作具。四為，謂所為也。五從，謂所從也。六屬，謂所屬也。七依，謂所依也。八呼，謂呼彼也。依聲明法，凡呼諸法，隨其所應有八轉聲。此中說輕為風業者，是舉果顯因之業用也，非如餘業聲之所表也。如言刀割等，能割離刀無別體也。

The Śāstra says: "The *Prakaraṇapāda*... therefore it also speaks of lightness." This resolves a textual contradiction. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "If the wind element has motion as its nature," why do both the sūtras and the *Prakaraṇapāda* say that the wind element refers to lightness and motile nature, and further state that lightness is a derived form? Speaking of motion as wind and lightness as derived form demonstrates their intrinsic characteristics. Identifying lightness with wind points to the cause through the effect, because lightness is an effect of wind. Would not the fire element also be a cause of lightness, since it is said that an increase in fire and wind produces lightness? Although this is said, fire is not definite. Where there is lightness caused by an increase in fire, there must be an abundant wind element. Or there may be lightness caused by an increase in wind, yet without an abundant fire element within it, such as the drifting, floating lightness of reed blossoms. If the fire element were abundant there, hot touch should be found within it. Therefore, the wind element is universally the cause of lightness, and lightness is singled out specifically to indicate the wind element. However, the characteristics of earth and so forth are easy to know, so there is no need to explain them; heaviness and other effects are obvious. In contrast to the other three, such as solidity, motion is difficult to know, so here the cause is indicated through the effect. Lightness is the accusative case (*karman*) among the eight case inflections. The eight case inflections are: first, the nominative, which directly denotes the entity of a dharma; second, the accusative, which denotes the action accomplished; third, the instrumental, which denotes the agent's instrument; fourth, the dative, which denotes what it is done for; fifth, the ablative, which denotes what it proceeds from; sixth, the genitive, which denotes what it belongs to; seventh, the locative, which denotes what it relies upon; eighth, the vocative, which denotes addressing that [entity]. According to the grammar of Vyākaraṇa, when designating phenomena, there are eight case inflections according to what is appropriate. Here, speaking of lightness as the function of wind is a function of indicating the cause through the effect; it is not expressed like other accusative cases. Just as when one speaks of a knife cutting, the ability to cut has no separate substance apart from the knife.