俱舍論疏 4.29

4.29

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.)"