俱舍論疏 12.204

12.204

論「又燒毛㲲至形量等故」，第三破也。毛謂羊毛等，㲲謂白㲲等，花謂紅花等。此三種實句體別，形量相似。德不同，毛黑、㲲白、花紅。未被燒時由色別故，知三種異，生毛等三覺。被燒已後同一黑色，形量同故，既不記識毛、㲲等異，故知德外無別實也。若謂實外有別德者，毛等三物未燒之時，實、德俱異。被燒已去，德同實異。雖德是同，實有異故。實又眼、身所得，因何不能記識毛、㲲等異？故知離色無別異也。

The treatise says: "Furthermore, when burning wool, cotton cloth... because their shapes and sizes are equal, etc.," this is the third refutation. "Wool" refers to sheep's wool, etc.; "cotton cloth" refers to white cotton cloth, etc.; "flower" refers to safflower, etc. These three substances are distinct in essence, but similar in shape and size. Their qualities are not the same: wool is black, cotton cloth is white, and the flower is red. Before being burned, because of the difference in visible form, one knows the three to be different, and the three apprehensions of wool, etc., arise. After being burned, they share the same single black color and their shapes and sizes are the same; since one no longer recognizes the difference of wool, cotton cloth, etc., one knows that apart from quality there is no separate substance. If it were claimed that apart from substance there are separate qualities: before the three things like wool were burned, substance and qualities were both different. After being burned, the qualities are the same, yet the substances would be different. Although the qualities are the same, the substances would still have differences; and furthermore, substance is perceived by the eye and the body—why then could one not recognize the difference of wool, cotton cloth, etc.? Therefore, one knows that apart from visible form there is no separate substance.