俱舍論疏 10.185

10.185

論「有時見色至而無益故」，通釋伏難。《正理論》云「色處何緣不名為食？是不至取根所行故。以契經說：段食非在手中、器中可成食事，要入鼻、口，牙齒咀嚼、津液浸潤，進度喉咽墮生藏中，漸漸消化味勢熟德，流諸脈中攝益諸蟲，乃名為食。爾時方得成食事故。若在手、器，以當為名，如天授名那落迦等。雖彼分段總得食名，而成食時唯香，味，觸，爾時唯此為根境故。若總分段皆名食者，聲、不相應亦應是食，非聲等物在彼段中可如香等亦名為食，以不相續無形段故，非無形段不相續物能住持身可成食事。又如何知色處非食？身內攝益根、大功能，如香、味、觸不別見故，爾時不生彼境、識故。云云乃至若爾何故於契經中稱讚段食具色、香、味？為令欣樂兼讚助緣，如亦讚言恭敬施與，豈即恭敬亦名段食？具正、助緣，如有讚花林具花、果、影、水，豈影與水亦即是林？云云乃至又舉色相表香、味、觸亦妙可欣故作是說。經何不讚食具觸耶？讚具色等已說觸故。非有惡觸具妙色等，故有妙觸不說自成。又唯觸處是真食體，讚此食體有色、香、味，故經說食體無缺減。」

The Śāstra says: "Sometimes seeing visible form ... yet there is no nourishment." This comprehensively resolves a hidden objection. The Nyāyānusāra says: "For what reason is the sphere of visible form not called food? Because it is the domain of a faculty that grasps without contact. For the scripture says: solid food cannot accomplish the function of food while in the hand or in a vessel; it must enter the nose or mouth, be chewed by the teeth, moistened by saliva, pass through the throat, fall into the stomach, and gradually digest, its flavor, potency, and cooked properties circulating through the vessels to nourish the parasites, before it is called food. Only at that time does it accomplish the function of food. If it is in the hand or a vessel, it is named after what it will become, like Devadatta being named Naraka and so forth. Although that morsel is collectively called food, when it becomes food, it is only odor, taste, and tangibles, because only these are the objects of faculties at that time. If all morsels collectively were called food, sound and non-associated [formations] would also have to be food; it is not the case that things such as sound within that morsel could also be called food like odor and so forth, because they lack continuity and have no tangible shape or morsel form. A thing lacking tangible shape and discontinuity cannot sustain the body or perform the function of food. Furthermore, how is it known that the sphere of visible form is not food? Because the function of nourishing the faculties and primary elements inside the body is not seen separately as in the case of odor, taste, and tangibles, and at that time, consciousness of that object does not arise. ... And so on, up to: If that is so, why does the scripture praise solid food as possessing visible form, odor, and taste? It is to cause delight, as well as to praise supporting conditions, just as it also praises respectful giving—could respect also be called solid food? It possesses both primary and supporting conditions, just as one praises a flower grove as possessing flowers, fruit, shade, and water—could shade and water also be the grove itself? ... And so on, up to: Moreover, mentioning the appearance of visible form signifies that odor, taste, and tangibles are also exquisite and delightful; hence this was said. Why does the sūtra not praise food as possessing tangibles? Because praising it as possessing visible form and so forth already implies tangibles. It is not that bad tangibles possess exquisite form and so forth; thus having exquisite tangibles is established without saying. Furthermore, only the sphere of tangibles is the true substance of food; praising this substance of food as having visible form, odor, and taste, the sūtra says that the substance of food lacks nothing."