俱舍論疏 15.91

15.91

論「於此無義至如是類比丘」，經部戲有部也。《正理論》云「經主釋言雖有此說，而彼唯有餘沙門相，故名沙門。如被燒材，假鸚鵡𭪿、涸池、敗種、火輪、死人。此但有言，所引眾喻皆無能故。以諸材木少被火燒，世間說名被燒材木，非全成炭名被燒材。若謂隨燒全分、一分二種皆許名被燒材，則喻及法二俱猶豫，喻於所喻無證功能。名涸池中容有少水，但無池用，故立涸名。設水全無亦名涸者，同前猶豫，於證無能。由此已遮死人、敗種。謂雖猶有少種功能，而諸世間亦說敗種。或雖不敗，被損功能不復生芽，亦名敗種。有同死法，亦名死人。故契經中言放逸者常死。假鸚鵡𭪿及旋火輪二喻，皆違契經所說。沙門有四更無第五，若唯形相得名沙門，如世有人須沙門相，矯設方便作沙門形，應名沙門，說為第五。非彼假𭪿及旋火輪可得，說名𭪿、輪。餘相非實，𭪿、輪為其先故，如是應有先非沙門作沙門形立為第五。然佛說四無第五言，為止如斯相沙門執，故引眾喻皆無證能。」

On the Śāstra's statement, "Here there is no point... such types of monks": the Sautrāntika is teasing the Sarvāstivādin. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "The author of the Śāstra explained that although this statement exists, they only possess the outward appearance of a recluse (śramaṇa) and are therefore called a recluse, like burnt wood, a decoy parrot, a dried-up pond, a ruined seed, a whirling firebrand, or a corpse. This is mere talk, for none of the adduced similes has probative efficacy. Because timber that is partially burnt by fire is conventionally called 'burnt timber' in the world, whereas what has completely become charcoal is not called burnt timber. If one claims that whether completely or partially burnt, both are accepted as being called 'burnt timber', then both the simile and the subject are cast into doubt; the simile lacks the efficacy to prove what it illustrates. A so-called dried-up pond may contain a little water, but lacks the function of a pond, and thus the name 'dried-up' is established. If having no water at all were also called dried-up, it would suffer the same doubt as before and lack efficacy in proving the point. By this, the corpse and the ruined seed are already refuted. That is, although a seed still possesses a little capacity, the world also calls it a ruined seed; or, though not rotten, its capacity is damaged so that it no longer sprouts, and it is likewise called a ruined seed. One possessing the attribute of death is also called a corpse, hence the sūtra states that the heedless are ever dead. The two similes of the decoy parrot and the whirling firebrand both contradict what is stated in the sūtras. There are four recluses, and no fifth. If one were called a recluse merely by bodily appearance, then just as when someone in the world requires the appearance of a recluse and contrives by expedient means to assume the form of a recluse, he ought to be called a recluse and spoken of as a fifth. But that decoy bird and the whirling firebrand cannot be called [real] birds or wheels. Their remaining appearances are not real, yet birds and wheels preceded them; similarly, one who was previously not a recluse and assumes the form of a recluse ought to be established as a fifth. However, the Buddha spoke of four and said there is no fifth in order to stop such clinging to a recluse of outward appearance; therefore, none of the adduced similes has probative efficacy."