俱舍論疏 14.194

14.194

論「語表為體」，答也。此出能歸依體。《正理論》云「此中能歸語表為體，自立誓限為自性故。若并眷屬，五蘊為體。以能歸依所有言說，由心等起非離於心。」《婆沙》三十四云「能歸依者，有說名等，有說是語業，有說亦身業，有說是信。應作是說，謂是身、語業，及能起心、心所法，并諸隨行。如是善五蘊是能歸依體。」《俱舍》同第二師，《正理》不同婆沙諸師，諸師中無取語業及心等為體者。應作是說是正義，因何兩論皆不同《婆沙》正義？有人云：論主故述《婆沙》不正義，試後學徒為覺不覺。眾賢尊者不覺斯文還依此釋。若依正解同《婆沙》評家，此釋非理。論主大有與《婆沙》不同義，豈皆試後學耶，又但讀《婆沙》者即覺，何為眾賢不覺？又眾賢兼有隨行能起，與《俱舍》異，如何是同？今詳三論不同。所以者，有別意也。《婆沙》通說能歸，所以取身、語等。《俱舍》言此能歸依者，即此律儀中能歸體也。《正理》言此中能歸者，亦是律儀中能歸也。皆有別意。此由論乘明受律儀後釋三歸故，此中受律儀三歸，能歸以語表為體，以能教先稱、受者隨教稱故，若身禮亦不成隨教歸依之法。由此兩論唯取語表業。《俱舍》據顯，略不說心等。《正理》具述兼明心等。若謂意別合有是非，既無是非，大意是同，據義別也。《婆沙》通明歸依通身、語等。

On the passage in the treatise: "Vocal intimation (vāgvijñapti) constitutes its nature": answering. This sets forth the essential nature of the ability to take refuge. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Here, vocal intimation constitutes the nature of the ability to take refuge, because its intrinsic nature is to establish a vow and limit for oneself. If taken along with its retinue, the five aggregates constitute its nature, because all speech involved in the ability to take refuge arises from the mind and is not separate from the mind." The Vibhāṣā, fascicle thirty-four, states: "Regarding that which can take refuge, some say it is names and so forth; some say it is vocal karma; some say it is also bodily karma; some say it is faith (śraddhā). It should be stated thus: it refers to bodily and vocal karma, the mind and mental factors that give rise to them, along with all attendant factors. Thus, the five wholesome aggregates are the nature of that which can take refuge." The Abhidharmakośa agrees with the second master. The Nyāyānusāra does not agree with any of the masters in the Vibhāṣā, for among those masters none takes vocal karma together with the mind and so forth as its nature. 'It should be stated thus' is the orthodox opinion; why do neither of the two treatises agree with the Vibhāṣā's orthodox opinion? Some say: the author of the treatise intentionally stated an unorthodox view of the Vibhāṣā to test later students as to whether they would notice it or not; the Venerable Saṅghabhadra did not notice this passage and merely followed this explanation. If based on the correct understanding that agrees with the evaluating master of the Vibhāṣā, this explanation is unreasonable. The author of the treatise has many views that differ from the Vibhāṣā; could they all be tests for later students? Furthermore, anyone who simply reads the Vibhāṣā would notice it; why would Saṅghabhadra fail to notice? Moreover, Saṅghabhadra includes the attendant and productive factors, which differs from the Abhidharmakośa; how could they be the same? Now, in examining the differences among the three treatises: the reason is that there is a different intention. The Vibhāṣā explains taking refuge generally, and therefore takes bodily and vocal [karma] and so forth. When the Abhidharmakośa speaks of 'this ability to take refuge', it refers specifically to the nature of taking refuge within this saṃvara (restraint). When the Nyāyānusāra speaks of 'the ability to take refuge here', it likewise refers to taking refuge within saṃvara. Both have a specific intention. Because the treatise takes up the explanation of the three refuges after clarifying the reception of saṃvara, here, in taking the three refuges upon receiving saṃvara, the ability to take refuge has vocal intimation as its nature; for the teacher first recites and the recipient recites following the instruction. If one merely pays physical homage, it does not constitute the procedure of taking refuge according to the instruction. For this reason, both treatises take only vocal intimating karma. The Abhidharmakośa relies on what is manifest and briefly omits the mind and so forth. The Nyāyānusāra provides a complete account, additionally clarifying the mind and so forth. If one supposes their intentions are different, there should be right and wrong; yet since there is no right or wrong, the general meaning is the same, based on different points of view. The Vibhāṣā broadly clarifies that taking refuge encompasses bodily and vocal karma, and so forth.