俱舍論疏 13.95

13.95

論「若謂既爾至與無表同」，遮有部難。《正理論》云「此釋非理。以一切法皆是意識所緣境故，住空閑者，意識即緣諸有見色為定境界。此色種類異餘色等，是從定起大種所生，無障澄清如空界色。如是理趣，辨〈本事品〉因釋夢境已具分別。應如是責：如何定境青等、長等顯、形為性，如餘色處非有見攝，然從定起大種所生極清妙故。又在定中眼識無故，非眼根境。如中有色雖具顯、形，而非生有眼所能見。或如上地色，非下地眼境。既有現在少分色處，不與少分眼根為境，如何不許有少色處，不與一切眼根為境？又於夢中所緣色處，應無見無對，唯意識境故。是故由經說有三色，證無表色實有理成。」准上論文，定境色處非眼根境，此違色處二識所識，復同彼同分色不與識合，即違婆沙正義。夢境色者，即是餘位，可眼見色，非謂此非眼根境界。其定境色亦是可見色處所攝，如解脫色，緣青等時是可見色。

On the treatise's statement, "If you say: 'If so ... it is identical with non-information'": this refutes the Sarvāstivādin objection. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "This explanation is illogical. Because all dharmas are objects of mental consciousness, for one dwelling in seclusion, mental consciousness takes visible matter as the domain of meditative concentration. The category of this matter differs from other matter and the like: it is produced by primary elements arising from meditation, and is unobstructed, pure, and clear like space-matter. Such a rationale was already fully differentiated in the analysis of dream objects in the 'Chapter on the Fundamental Matters.' One should challenge it thus: How could that whose nature consists of color and shape—blue and so forth, long and so forth—as the domain of concentration, like other matter-bases, not be subsumed under the visible, yet be produced by primary elements arising from meditation and therefore be extremely subtle and pure? Moreover, because eye-consciousness is absent in meditative absorption, it is not an object of the eye-faculty. Just as intermediate existence matter, though possessing color and shape, cannot be seen by the eye of birth-existence; or just as matter of a higher stage is not the object of the eye of a lower stage. Since there is currently a small portion of the matter-base that does not serve as an object for a small portion of eye-faculties, why not accept that there is a small portion of matter that does not serve as an object for any eye-faculties? Furthermore, the matter-base cognized in dreams would have to be invisible and unobstructed, because it is an object only of mental consciousness. Therefore, because the discourses speak of three kinds of matter, the proof that non-informative matter is a real entity is logically established." Following the text of the treatise above, the matter-base that is the domain of concentration is not the object of the eye-faculty; this contradicts the principle that the matter-base is cognized by two consciousnesses, and furthermore, being like *tatsabhāga* matter that does not connect with consciousness, it contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the *Vibhāṣā*. Dream-matter is matter visible to the eye in other states; this does not mean that it is never an object of the eye-faculty. The matter that is the domain of concentration is also subsumed under the visible matter-base; like the matter of liberation, when it takes blue and so forth as its object, it is visible matter.