俱舍論疏 2.4

2.4

「論曰至說餘無見」，長行釋。頌三門則為三段，此第一釋有見也。《婆沙》、《正理》皆有二釋。《正理》第四云「云何說此名有見耶？由二義故。一者、此色定與見俱，故名有見。由色與眼俱時起故，如有伴侶。二者、此色可有示現，故名有見。可示在此、在彼別故，如有所緣。有說：此色於鏡等中有像可現，故名有見。可示如彼，此亦爾故。不可說聲有谷嚮等，應成有見，不俱生故。」《婆沙》同也。此論但取第二，以可示現此、彼差別。由此義准，餘無見者，除色，餘十七，不可示現彼、此差別，名無見也。如《正理》即無上三義名無見也。此論略故，唯一釋也。

"The treatise says: [...] the rest are said to be invisible." Prose explanation. The three categories in the verse are divided into three sections; this first explains visibility. Both the Vibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra provide two explanations. Nyāyānusāra fascicle 4 says: "Why is this said to be visible? Due to two meanings. First, this matter necessarily occurs together with seeing (vision), hence it is called visible. Because matter arises simultaneously with the eye, like having a companion. Second, this matter can be pointed out, hence it is called visible. Because it can be pointed out differently as being here or being there, like having an intentional object. Some say: this matter can produce a reflection in mirrors and the like, hence it is called visible. Because it can be demonstrated like that, and this is also the case. One cannot say that sound has echoes and so forth, so it should also become visible, because they do not arise simultaneously." The Vibhāṣā is the same. This treatise takes only the second, in that it can be pointed out with a distinction of here and there. By this implication, the remaining invisible ones, excluding matter, refer to the other seventeen, which cannot be pointed out with a distinction of here and there, and are called invisible. According to the Nyāyānusāra, lacking the above three meanings is called invisible. Because this treatise is brief, it provides only one explanation.