俱舍論疏 15.157

15.157

論「此業與受至順樂受等」，難也。意業通與三受相應，而體是思，非是受性。身、語二業以色為體，既與受殊，如何說名順受之業？

On the Śāstra's statement: "Between this action and sensation [...] conducive to pleasant sensation, and so forth": This is an objection. Mental action is associated generally with the three sensations, yet its essence is volition, not the nature of sensation. Bodily and vocal actions take matter as their essence; since they differ from sensation, how can they be called actions conducive to sensation?