俱舍論疏 4.29

4.29

論「應知此中至類無別故」，此以類同合說答也。然《正理論》更有二說，故彼論云「或唯依體亦無有失，由此中說定俱生故。形色等體非決定有，光、明等中則無有故。或唯依處，然為遮遣多誹謗故，別說大種。多誹謗者，謂或謗言：大種造色無別有性（謂譬喻部及覺天等）。或復謗言：無別觸處所造色體（室利邏多說許餘色）。或復謗言：非一切聚皆具一切。經部諸師或有總無四大，或復謗言數不決定，別說大種此謗皆除（經部諸師同大乘說，或言定有大種不必具四）。」

On the Śāstra's statement, "It should be understood here that... because there is no difference in type": this answers by combining them because of sameness of type. However, the Nyāyānusāra has two further explanations; thus that treatise says: "Alternatively, there is also no fault if based solely on substance, because it is stated here that they necessarily arise together. The substances of shape matter and the like do not definitely exist, since they are absent in light, luminescence, and so forth. Alternatively, it is based solely on bases, yet in order to refute numerous false views, the great elements are stated separately. As for the 'numerous false views': some falsely claim that the great elements and derived matter have no distinct intrinsic nature (meaning the Dārṣṭāntikas, Bhadanta Buddhadeva, and others); or again, others falsely claim that there is no separate substance of derived matter within the tangible-object base (Śrīlāta's view accepts other matter); or again, others falsely claim that not all aggregates are equipped with all [elements]. Among the Sautrāntika masters, some maintain that there are no four great elements at all, or again falsely claim that their number is not fixed. By stating the great elements separately, all these false views are eliminated. (The Sautrāntika masters agree with the Mahāyāna view, or say that great elements definitely exist but do not necessarily comprise all four.)"