俱舍論疏 4.66

4.66

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.