俱舍論疏 1.292

1.292

論「若爾不應至有聚義故」，論主難也。經說聚義名之為蘊，而言一實亦名蘊者，此聖教相違過。《正理論》云「若以聚義釋蘊義者，蘊則非實，聚是假故。此難不然。於聚所依立義言故，非聚即義。義是實物名之差別，聚非實故。此釋顯經有大義趣，謂如言聚，離聚所依無別實有聚體可得。如是言我、色等蘊外，不應別求實有我體，蘊相續中假說我故，如世間聚，我非實有。蘊若實有，經顯何義？勿所化生。知色等法三時品類無量差別，各是蘊故蘊則無邊，便生怯退，謂我何能遍知永斷此無邊蘊。為策勵彼，蘊雖無邊，而相同故總說為一。又諸愚夫於多蘊上生一合想現起我執，為令彼除一合想故，說一蘊中有眾多分，不為顯示色等五蘊多法合成是假非實。又一極微三世等攝，以慧分析略為一聚，蘊雖即聚而實義成，餘法亦然，故蘊非假。又於一一別起法中亦說蘊故，蘊定非假。如說俱生受名受蘊、想名想蘊。餘說如經。於一切時和合生故，蘊雖各別而聚義成。」

[On the quote from the] *Śāstra*: “If that were so, it should not [be said]… because there is the meaning of collection,” the author of the *Śāstra* objects. The sūtra states that the meaning of collection is termed a skandha; yet to claim that a single real entity is also called a skandha commits the fault of contradicting the sacred teachings. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “If the meaning of skandha is explained through the meaning of collection, then skandhas would not be real entities, because a collection is nominal. This objection is invalid. This is because the word ‘meaning’ is established with respect to the basis of the collection, not that the collection itself is the referent. ‘Referent’ is a distinction among real things, whereas a collection is not real. This explanation reveals the great import of the sūtra: just as when one says ‘collection’, apart from the basis of the collection there is no other distinct real entity of collection to be found, so too when one says ‘self’, outside of the skandhas such as form one should not search for a distinct, really existent self-entity, because within the continuum of skandhas a self is nominally designated; like a worldly collection, the self is not really existent. If skandhas were real entities, what meaning would the sūtra reveal? Lest the beings to be converted, upon knowing that dharmas such as form have immeasurable distinctions among the varieties of the three time periods and that each is a skandha, think that skandhas are therefore boundless and then give rise to cowardice and despondency, thinking: ‘How could I completely understand and eternally sever these boundless skandhas?’ To encourage them, although skandhas are boundless, because their characteristics are identical they are collectively declared to be one. Furthermore, ordinary fools give rise to the notion of a unitary whole upon multiple skandhas and generate self-grasping; in order to make them eliminate the notion of a unitary whole, it is taught that within a single skandha there are numerous parts—not to show that the five skandhas such as form, being composed of multiple dharmas, are nominal and not real. Furthermore, even a single atom subsumes the three times and so forth; when analyzed by wisdom, it is briefly taken as one collection. Although the skandha is indeed a collection, its status as a real entity is established; the other dharmas are likewise so, and therefore skandhas are not nominal. Moreover, because skandha is also spoken of with respect to each individually arising dharma, skandhas are definitely not nominal. For example, it is taught that co-arisen feeling is called the feeling skandha, and perception is called the perception skandha. The rest is stated as in the sūtra. Because they arise in conjunction at all times, although skandhas are distinct, the meaning of collection is established.”