俱舍論疏 28.117

28.117

論「若謂於此至為有何德」，遮有部通經也。若有部通經，云經說身者說意為身，非五根者，為有何德勝說為心？《正理論》云「契經說為身所受樂，然不能證彼地樂根非心受攝，亦說離生喜是身所證故。豈可由此便執喜根非心受攝？若謂無色不說身者，此非決定，無色界中說身見故。又見於彼說身壞故，又說彼身下劣生故。」又云「此說身名為有何德者，為顯彼樂受自內所證故。謂彼地樂非所依、緣所能顯了，唯自內證。此即顯彼樂受中極。亦見於自說以身聲，如說由身證甘露界，即是自證甘露界義（已上論文）。」

On the treatise passage: "If it is said that here [...] what virtue would it have?": this refutes the Sarvāstivādin's harmonizing interpretation of the sūtra. If the Sarvāstivādin interprets the sūtra by claiming that when the sūtra says "body" it means the mental faculty as the body, not the five sense faculties, then what superior virtue would this have over saying "mind"? The Nyāyānusāra states: "The sūtra says 'pleasure felt by the body,' yet this cannot prove that the faculty of pleasure of that level is not subsumed under mental feeling, because it also says that 'joy born of separation is realized through the body.' How could one grasp from this that the faculty of joy is not subsumed under mental feeling? If it is claimed that 'body' is not spoken of in the formless realm, this is not definitive, for bodily view is spoken of in the formless realm. Moreover, we see it said that the body is destroyed there, and it is also said that their bodies are born inferior." It also states: "As for asking what virtue there is in using the name 'body,' it is to show that that pleasurable feeling is realized within oneself. That is to say, the pleasure of that level is not manifested by basis or object, but is realized solely within oneself. This demonstrates the culmination of that pleasurable feeling. We also see that the word 'body' is used for 'oneself,' just as when it is said 'realizing the deathless realm with the body,' which means realizing the deathless realm by oneself" (end of treatise citation).