俱舍論疏 4.12

4.12

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.