俱舍論疏 4.15

4.15

論「於彼聚中至與[麩-夫+少]合味」，此以用增答也。《婆沙》一百三十一有其兩說：一云體增、二云用增。此論是後師，《正理》是前師。《正理》救前師云「豈不色法亦見用增？如酢和水、良藥和毒、鹽和水等。雖兩數同而用有異，如何言色就體說增？此不相違。以酢與水觸微雖等而味不同，酢味微多、水味微少，故酢味勝還是體增。於諸聚中有味等物體增強故，謂是用增。良藥、毒等緣起，理門有差別故，體類如是。由此雖少而能伏多，非異體類有別用生。故執用增是為邪計。或如類別，品別亦爾，故唯心等就用說增、就體說增，謂諸色法，譬如依多、依一成故。」釋曰：色、心依一依多不同，用增、體增亦非一例。詳其兩說，竝是《婆沙》之文，正理論師此中不合彈斥論主為非。然詳體增、用增，未為盡理。如若干水具有六味，如有六人同食此水，先覺不同，何者體增？何者用增？故知法性隨緣不定，非體、用。

The treatise says: 'In that aggregate... combined taste with roasted flour', which answers by way of an increase in function. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred and thirty-one, has two explanations: one says an increase in substance, and the other says an increase in function. This treatise adopts the latter master, while the Nyāyānusāra adopts the former master. The Nyāyānusāra rescues the former master, stating: 'Do we not also observe an increase in function in material phenomena? As when vinegar is mixed with water, good medicine is mixed with poison, salt is mixed with water, and so forth. Although the quantities of both are equal, their functions differ; how can it be said that for material phenomena, increase is spoken of in terms of substance? There is no contradiction here. Because although the tangible atoms of vinegar and water are equal, their tastes differ: the taste atoms of vinegar are more, and the taste atoms of water are fewer; hence, that the taste of vinegar is predominant is still an increase in substance. In various aggregates, because entities such as taste are substantively increased and strong, it is said to be an increase in function. Because the conditioned arising and principles of good medicine, poison, and so forth have distinctions, their substantive categories are like this. Due to this, although small in quantity they can overcome the large, and it is not that a different function arises distinct from the substantive category. Therefore, grasping at an increase in function is a wrong view. Or, just as categories are distinct, grades are also like this; hence only for the mind and the like is increase spoken of in terms of function, while for material phenomena increase is spoken of in terms of substance, just as it is established by depending on many or depending on one.' Explication: Mind and matter being dependent on one or dependent on many are different; increase in function and increase in substance are also not of a single pattern. Examining the two explanations, both are texts of the Vibhāṣā; the Nyāyānusāra master, in this context, should not censure the treatise master as being wrong. However, when we examine increase in substance and increase in function, they do not yet exhaust the principle. For example, if a quantity of water possesses all six tastes, and six people consume this water together, their initial perceptions differ: which one is an increase in substance? Which one is an increase in function? Therefore, we know that the nature of dharmas is indeterminate in accordance with conditions; it is not substance or function.