俱舍論疏 4.12

4.12

今詳念法師釋深得論意。一切四大不必有聲，與《婆沙》評家義同。一切欲、色界定成就聲者，據一身說。一切欲界色必不離香、味，同《婆沙》一百四十五評家，身在色界作欲界化，亦化香、味而不成就。泰法師解：若言定成就聲，此說即是。若言一切四大必不離色、聲者，此即非也。只可言不離色，何得必不離聲？准《婆沙》評家義，有四大種不離聲、有四大種離聲，何得說言一切四大必不離聲？若言大種皆遍發聲，還同婆沙評家所破，故亦非理。又言一切欲界色必不離香、味，還同念法師。准念法師一切四大必不離色、不必有聲者，此同《婆沙》評家所說，擊發四大方名有聲，自餘四大不名有聲，非是一身不必有聲名為不定。若說同在一身，即合必有聲也，應定九、十等。今詳《婆沙》二說，前師欲界必不離香、味者，是色界亦化香、味如莊嚴具而不成就。後師一切欲界色不必有香、味者，是身在色界，唯化欲界色、觸二境。泰師、光師妄解念法師意，以《雜心》不說有聲，明知此聲非恒成就。此即謬釋法師意也。念法師既講迦延，豈不知《發智》云「誰成就聲持？答曰欲、色界。」又豈不知無想十入？念法師以非是一切四大恒有聲故不必有聲，非謂一身全無聲也。如此論等云「無聲八、九、十，有聲九、十、十一」等，此同《雜心》。此言無聲，豈說不成就聲耶？法師既取此文，意亦如是。

Now, examining Dharma Master Nian's explanation, it deeply grasps the treatise's intention. That all four great elements do not necessarily have sound is identical with the view of the evaluator in the Vibhāṣā. That all in the desire and form realms definitely possess sound is spoken based on a single body. That all desire-realm visible form is definitely not separated from fragrance and taste is identical with the evaluator of the Vibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred and forty-five, [which says that] when one whose body is in the form realm creates emanations of the desire realm, they also emanate fragrance and taste without possessing them. Dharma Master Tai's explanation: if he says that sound is definitely possessed, this statement is correct; if he says that all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible form and sound, this is incorrect. One can only say that they are not separated from visible form; how could one say they are definitely not separated from sound? Based on the view of the evaluator in the Vibhāṣā, there are four great elements that are not separated from sound, and there are four great elements that are separated from sound; how can one say that all four great elements are definitely not separated from sound? If one says that all great elements produce sound everywhere, this falls back into what was refuted by the evaluator of the Vibhāṣā, and therefore it is also irrational. Furthermore, stating that all desire-realm visible form is definitely not separated from fragrance and taste is also the same as Dharma Master Nian. According to Dharma Master Nian's [view] that all four great elements are definitely not separated from visible form and do not necessarily have sound, this agrees with what was stated by the evaluator in the Vibhāṣā: only when the four great elements are struck and excited is it termed 'having sound'; the remaining four great elements themselves are not termed 'having sound'. It is not that within a single body sound is not necessarily present and thus called indefinite. If one speaks of [the elements] being together in a single body, then sound must inevitably be present, and it should definitely be nine, ten, and so forth. Now, examining the two explanations in the Vibhāṣā: the former master's [view] that the desire realm is definitely not separated from fragrance and taste means that in the form realm, fragrance and taste are also emanated like ornamental requisites, without being possessed. The latter master's [view] that all desire-realm visible form does not necessarily have fragrance and taste means that when the body is in the form realm, it emanates only the two sense-objects of desire-realm visible form and tangibility. Dharma Master Tai and Dharma Master Guang falsely explained Dharma Master Nian's intention, saying that because the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya does not mention the presence of sound, one clearly knows that this sound is not constantly possessed. This is an erroneous interpretation of the Dharma Master's intention. Since Dharma Master Nian lectured on Kātyāyanī[putra], how could he not know that the Jñānaprasthāna says: 'Who possesses the dhātu of sound? The answer is: the desire and form realms'? Moreover, how could he not know the ten āyatanas of the non-ideational [gods]? Because not all four great elements constantly have sound, Dharma Master Nian [held that] sound is not necessary, not that a single body completely lacks sound. Just as this treatise and others say 'without sound: eight, nine, ten; with sound: nine, ten, eleven', and so forth, this agrees with the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya. When this says 'without sound', how could it mean that one does not possess sound? Since the Dharma Master adopted this text, his intention was likewise so.