俱舍論疏 4.66

4.66

論「有如經說至得名無失」，引經例釋。亦見餘處嗔及嗔因緣名嗔恚蓋，見、思惟、及勤名為慧蘊。雖彼嗔因、思惟及勤，非嗔、非慧，然順彼故亦得彼名。此亦應爾。經部亦許有心輕安，而無別體，即思差別。唯定心有，於散即無，五識相應理即非有。身輕安者即是輕觸，身輕利因。《正理論》云「有作是言：此中既說身輕安故，非唯心所說名輕安。此言非理，受等亦應同此說故。然五識身相應諸受說名身受。有作是說：設有輕安，體非心所。然此中說心所法故，不應說彼，以能隨順覺支體亦名覺支。謂身輕安，能引覺支心輕安故。亦見餘處，嗔及嗔因名嗔恚蓋，見、思惟、勤名為慧蘊。雖彼嗔因，思惟及勤非嗔非慧，然順彼故亦得彼名。此亦應爾。」今詳此《正理》既言有作是說敘兩師說，有人所釋似不得意。亦見餘處已下，似通述彼計，非是欲說五識輕安名覺支也。《婆沙》上下無說身輕安名覺支故。設有此說，是引證自宗，即是別有經說身輕安名覺支也。

The Treatise states: "There is, as a sūtra states: [...] gaining the name without error." A sūtra is cited as a parallel explanation. It is also seen elsewhere that hatred and the causes and conditions of hatred are named the hindrance of ill-will, and views, reflection, and effort are named the aggregate of wisdom. Although that cause of hatred, reflection, and effort are not hatred and not wisdom, because they accord with them they also receive their names. Here too it should be likewise. The Sautrāntika also acknowledges mental pliancy, but it lacks a separate entity, being merely a distinction of volition. It exists only in a concentrated mind, does not exist in distraction, and in principle does not exist conjoined with the five consciousnesses. Bodily pliancy is light tangible object, the cause of bodily lightness and agility. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Some make this statement: Since bodily pliancy is spoken of here, it is not solely a mental factor that is called pliancy. This statement is unreasonable, because sensation and so forth would also have to follow this explanation. Rather, sensations conjoined with the five consciousness-bodies are called bodily sensations. Some make this statement: Even if there is pliancy, its entity is not a mental factor. Yet because mental factors are spoken of here, that should not be spoken of; it is because it can accord with the limb of awakening that its entity is also called a limb of awakening. That is to say, bodily pliancy can induce the mental pliancy that is a limb of awakening. It is also seen elsewhere that hatred and the cause of hatred are named the hindrance of ill-will, and views, reflection, and effort are named the aggregate of wisdom. Although that cause of hatred, reflection, and effort are not hatred and not wisdom, because they accord with them they also receive their names. Here too it should be likewise." Now, examining this: since the Nyāyānusāra says 'Some make this statement', presenting the positions of two masters, the explanation given by a certain person seems not to have grasped the point. From 'It is also seen elsewhere' onward, it seems to give a general account of their position, not that it intends to state that pliancy of the five consciousnesses is called a limb of awakening. For throughout the Vibhāṣā, nowhere is it stated that bodily pliancy is called a limb of awakening. If there were such a statement, it would be citing evidence for their own school, meaning that there is a separate sūtra stating that bodily pliancy is called a limb of awakening.