俱舍論疏 1.213

1.213

論「欲所擾惱變壞生故」，答也。《正理論》云「此中色蘊何緣名色？善逝聖教且說變壞故名為色。此說意言：苦受因故、有觸對故、可轉易故，名為變壞，由變壞故說名為色。苦受因者，色有變壞能生苦受，如〈義品〉言趣求、欲等。有觸對者，手等所觸色便變壞，是有對礙可變壞義。可轉易者，如牛羊等身可轉易，是可轉變及貿易義，由可轉易故名變壞。云何色法可轉易耶？謂異相生，故名轉易。或能表示宿所習業，故名為色。如契經說：此摩納婆，宿習能招惡形色業，謂多忿恨。或能表示內心所有，故名為色。如契經說：具壽！汝今諸根凝悅，定證甘露。豈不此說唯就有見有情數色訓釋色詞？唯此能表宿所習業及內心故。若爾，無見非情數色應皆非色。無斯過失，唯色聚中有此義故，不說諸色皆能表示。且於一切非色聚中無能表示，故此釋詞理得成立。如契經說：業為生因。此說諸生皆因於業，不言諸業皆是生因。今不應難業非生因便為非業。若不爾者，善逝訓詞亦可為難：非一切色皆變壞。故世尊且據有對礙色說如是言：有變壞故說名為色。」

[The text of the] Treatise states: "Because [when it is] perturbed by desire, deterioration arises," which is the reply. The *Nyāyānusāra* states: "Here, for what reason is the form skandha called matter (rūpa)? The holy teaching of the Sugata provisionally states that it is called matter because of deterioration. The purport of this statement is: because it is the cause of painful sensation, because it possesses tactile contact, and because it is mutable, it is called deterioration; and because of deterioration, it is called matter. As for 'cause of painful sensation': matter undergoes deterioration and can generate painful sensation, as stated in the *Arthavargīya* regarding seeking after, desire, and so forth. As for 'possessing tactile contact': matter touched by hands and so forth immediately deteriorates; this is the meaning of possessing resistance and being liable to deterioration. As for 'mutable': just as the bodies of oxen, sheep, and so forth can be altered, this is the meaning of being transformable and exchangeable; because it is mutable, it is called deterioration. How can physical phenomena be mutable? It means that [new] distinct characteristics arise, hence it is called mutable. Alternatively, it can manifest past habitual karma, and therefore it is called matter. As a sūtra says: 'This young Brahmin habitually cultivated in the past karma that invites an ugly bodily form—namely, frequent anger and hatred.' Alternatively, it can manifest what is in the inner mind, and therefore it is called matter. As a sūtra says: 'Venerable one! Today your faculties are calm and radiant; you have surely realized the deathless.' Would this explanation not be an etymological gloss on the word 'matter' solely with respect to visible matter belonging to the category of sentient beings? For only this can manifest past habitual karma and the inner mind. If so, invisible matter and matter not belonging to the category of sentient beings would all fail to be matter. There is no such fault, because this meaning is present only within material aggregates; it does not say that all forms of matter can manifest [these things]. Moreover, among all aggregates that are not matter, none can manifest [them]; hence this etymological gloss is reasonably established. As a sūtra says: 'Karma is the cause of birth.' This says that all births are caused by karma; it does not say that all karmas are the cause of birth. One should not now object that karma which is not a cause of birth would thereby not be karma. If it were not so, the Sugata's etymological gloss could also be objected to: not all matter deteriorates. Therefore, the World-Honoured One, provisionally basing himself on matter that possesses resistance, made such a statement: 'Because it undergoes deterioration, it is called matter.'"