俱舍論疏 27.166

27.166

論「有說在色唯化二處」，第二答也。《正理論》云「雖生在色作欲界化，而無色界成香、味失，化作自身唯二處故。有說：亦化四，如衣等不成。」《婆沙》一百三十五有二說，評家云：「如是說者，雖化香、味無成就失。如人衣服、嚴具、花香，雖復在身而不成就。」准上論文，故知若作化人令語聲，非執受大種所造，亦不成就，唯依自身化作問答故。有人問答云：問：異界化色、觸皆成就不？解云：皆成就。如《婆沙》一百三十二云「有成就欲界繫大種，亦色界繫大種，謂生欲界，色界大種現在前。若生色界作欲界化，發欲界語。」又云「有成就欲界繫大種，亦色界繫所造色，謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化，發欲界語。」《婆沙》既言若生色界作欲界化發欲界語，成就欲界大種及所造色，文不別簡，明知異界化若化自、若化他身，色、觸二種皆悉成就。義准應知，若即身化、若離身化，亦皆成就。或可若即身化即成就，若離身化即不成就。《婆沙》言成就者，據即身化。雖有兩解，前解為勝。又《婆沙》云「如是說者，離所化身不發化語，語者必由麁四大種相擊起故。」今評二釋，前解為非。若別作化人有成就得，不應道理。諸有為法住現在世，有成就得必是有情。說別化人為有情法，不應道理。故住現在世色、觸二境，若是有情住散心位，無非執受。諸化人語聲，應是執受大種所發。又婆沙評家云：「自身化如莊嚴具尚不成就，況異身化而成就也。」以此證知，前解為失。《婆沙》依身發語者，化人身，非化主身。

On the Śāstra's statement: "Some say that when in the form realm, only two bases are conjured": This is the second answer. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Although one born in the form realm conjures [things of] the desire realm, there is no fault of possessing odor and taste in the form realm, because in conjuring on one's own person only two bases [visible form and tangible] are produced. Some say: four [bases] are also conjured, but like clothing, etc., they are not possessed." Fascicle 135 of the Vibhāṣā presents two explanations, and the arbitrating master says: "The correct explanation is this: although one conjures odor and taste, there is no fault of possession. Just as a person's clothing, ornaments, and floral garlands, though present on the body, are not possessed." Based on the text of the Śāstra above, one therefore knows that if one creates a conjured person and causes them to produce vocal sounds, these are not created by grasped great elements and are likewise not possessed; it is only with reference to one's own person that question-and-answer exchanges are conjured. Someone posed a question and answer: Question: Are the visible form and tangible of an apparition from a different realm both possessed? Answer: They are both possessed. As Vibhāṣā fascicle 132 says: "There are those who possess great elements bound to the desire realm and also great elements bound to the form realm; that is, one born in the desire realm when great elements of the form realm are present. Or one born in the form realm who conjures desire-realm apparitions and utters desire-realm speech." It also states: "There are those who possess great elements bound to the desire realm and also derived matter bound to the form realm; that is, one born in the desire realm who attains a wholesome mind of the form realm. Or one born in the form realm who conjures desire-realm apparitions and utters desire-realm speech." Since the Vibhāṣā states that if one born in the form realm conjures desire-realm apparitions and utters desire-realm speech, they possess desire-realm great elements and derived matter, and the text makes no special distinction, we clearly know that for apparitions of a different realm—whether conjuring one's own person or conjuring another person—both visible form and tangibles are completely possessed. By extension of the principle, it should be understood that whether the conjuration is on the body or separate from the body, both are likewise possessed. Or perhaps: if the conjuration is on the body, it is possessed; if it is separate from the body, it is not possessed. When the Vibhāṣā speaks of possession, it refers to conjurations on the body. Although there are two explanations, the former is superior. Moreover, the Vibhāṣā states: "The correct explanation is this: apart from the conjured body, conjured speech is not produced; speech necessarily arises through the mutual striking of coarse great elements." Now evaluating the two interpretations: the former explanation is incorrect. If an independently conjured person had the acquisition of possession, that would be unreasonable. Conditioned phenomena abiding in the present time that have the acquisition of possession must be sentient beings. To say that an independently conjured person is a sentient phenomenon is unreasonable. Therefore, as for the two sensory objects of visible form and tangible abiding in the present time, if they belong to a sentient being abiding in a distracted mental state, they cannot fail to be grasped. The vocal sounds of conjured persons should be produced by grasped great elements. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā's arbitrating master states: "Conjurations on one's own person, like ornaments, are not even possessed, let alone conjurations of a different person!" By this proof we know that the former interpretation is mistaken. When the Vibhāṣā speaks of producing speech dependent on the body, it refers to the conjured person's body, not the conjurer's body.