俱舍論疏 27.24

27.24

論「如是身力至離七外別有」，明力體也。《婆沙》三十有五說。一云：四大無偏，增勝名身力，羸弱名身劣。第二云：地增名身力，水增名身劣。第三說：重增名身力，輕增名身劣。第四云：離七所造觸外別有所造觸名身力身劣。第五評家，應作是說：即四大種及所造觸俱是身力、身劣自性。謂若調和俱名身力，若不調和俱名身劣。《俱舍》前釋非《婆沙》第五釋。亦可同《婆沙》初二說大種差別，即是無偏增等、地增等故。後釋同第四。《正理》有四解。一云：如是身力觸處為性，此應總是諸觸差別。此同《婆沙》評家。諸觸差別即是四大，及所造觸調和之異名也。第二云：唯大種差別。此同《俱舍》前說。第三云：是造觸離七外有。此同《俱舍》後說。第四云：力是重，劣是輕。此同《婆沙》第三說。《正理》以《婆沙》評家為正，《俱舍》意別。論師意爾，不可和會。

On the Śāstra's statement, "Such physical strength [...] exists separately apart from the seven": this clarifies the intrinsic nature of the strength. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 30, presents five explanations. The first says: when the four great elements are without imbalance, their superior increase is called physical strength, and their weakness is called physical debility. The second says: an increase of earth is called physical strength, and an increase of water is called physical debility. The third explanation says: an increase of heaviness is called physical strength, and an increase of lightness is called physical debility. The fourth says: apart from the seven derived tangible objects, there is a separate derived tangible object called physical strength and physical debility. The fifth, the evaluation [by the Vibhāṣā's compiler], says: one should state that the four great elements as well as derived tangibles are both the intrinsic nature of physical strength and physical debility. That is, if they are harmonious, both are called physical strength; if they are not harmonious, both are called physical debility. The Kośa's first explanation is not the fifth explanation of the Vibhāṣā. It could also correspond to the first two explanations of the Vibhāṣā concerning differences in the great elements, which are precisely the increase without imbalance, the increase of earth, and so on. Its subsequent explanation corresponds to the fourth. The Nyāyānusāra gives four interpretations. The first says: such physical strength has the tangible sensory base (spraṣṭavyāyatana) as its nature; this should generally be a distinction among various tangibles. This agrees with the Vibhāṣā's evaluator. The distinction among tangibles is precisely another name for the harmony of the four great elements and derived tangibles. The second says: it is solely a distinction of the great elements. This agrees with the former explanation in the Kośa. The third says: it is a derived tangible existing apart from the seven. This agrees with the latter explanation in the Kośa. The fourth says: strength is heaviness, and debility is lightness. This agrees with the third explanation of the Vibhāṣā. The Nyāyānusāra takes the Vibhāṣā's evaluator as correct, whereas the Kośa's intent is different. The treatise masters' intents being such, they cannot be reconciled.