俱舍論疏 2.72

2.72

論「彼說不然至理定不然」，破也。引二經破，此第一引經破也。「彼說不然」，總非也。「契經唯說堅等四相為大種故」者，經唯說堅相為地種、濕相為水種、煖相為火種、動相為風種，非說滑等青等相為地等種故，故知滑等相非地等種。「此四大種唯觸攝故」者，堅等四相唯是觸處，故知餘處非四大種。「非堅濕等眼等所取」者，色等是眼等所取，故知非大種。「非色聲等身根所覺」者，故知色等非是四大。「彼說理定不然」者，結也。

On the text of the treatise: "His statement is not correct… as a matter of principle it is definitely not so": This is the refutation. It cites two sūtras to refute it; this is the first citation of a sūtra as a refutation. "His statement is not correct" is the general negation. "Because the sūtras state only the four characteristics of solidity and so forth to be the great elements": the sūtras only state the characteristic of solidity to be the earth element, the characteristic of moisture to be the water element, the characteristic of heat to be the fire element, and the characteristic of motion to be the wind element; they do not state that the characteristics of smoothness and so forth, blue and so forth, are the earth element and so forth. Therefore we know that characteristics such as smoothness are not the earth element and so forth. "Because these four great elements are subsumed exclusively under tangibles": the four characteristics of solidity and so forth are exclusively the sense-base of tangibles, so we know that the other sense-bases are not the four great elements. "Solidity, moisture, and so forth are not apprehended by the eye and so forth": form and so forth are apprehended by the eye and so forth, so we know they are not the great elements. "Form, sound, and so forth are not sensed by the body faculty": therefore we know that form and so forth are not the four great elements. "His statement is as a matter of principle definitely not so" is the conclusion.