俱舍論疏 13.104

13.104

論「若色處等至聲等亦爾」，譬喻師反難也。若色處等十五界一向有漏者，何故經等不直說色處心裁覆事，簡去無漏差別而說有漏有取諸色心裁覆事。故知別有無漏色等非是心裁。裁謂裁蘗，即是與有漏心為生之本覆障事也。《正理》破云「又非眼等非漏對治得有漏名，勿有世間諸離染道成無漏故。又彼眼等非如意、法、意識說故。謂佛有漏、無漏相中作如是言：墮世間意、墮世間法、墮世間意識，是名有漏。出世間意、出世間法、出世間意識，是名無漏。非眼等中作如是說，故知彼說但述耶計。」

On the treatise's statement, "If the matter-base and so forth ... sound and so forth are also like this": the Dārṣṭāntika objects in return. If the fifteen elements, including the matter-base, were exclusively polluted, why did the discourses and treatises not simply speak of the matter-base as things that bind and cover the mind, but rather qualified it to exclude unpolluted distinctions by speaking of "polluted, graspable material forms as things that bind and cover the mind"? Therefore, one knows that there is separately unpolluted matter and so forth that are not bindings of the mind. "Binding" means fettering, namely the obstructive things that serve as the root for producing polluted mind. The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, saying: "Furthermore, it is not because the eye and so forth are not antidotes to the pollutions that they receive the name 'polluted,' lest worldly paths of dispassion become unpolluted. Moreover, those eyes and so forth are not spoken of in the manner of the mind, dharmas, and mental consciousness. That is, in defining the characteristics of polluted and unpolluted, the Buddha spoke in this way: 'Mind belonging to the world, dharmas belonging to the world, mental consciousness belonging to the world—these are called polluted. Supramundane mind, supramundane dharmas, supramundane mental consciousness—these are called unpolluted.' He did not speak in this way regarding the eye and so forth. Therefore, one knows that their doctrine merely states a mistaken view."