俱舍論頌疏論本 1.117

1.117

（此頌是釋迦菩薩為多求王說也。此王性貪，欲採海寶。魔變為臣來白於王：「我能採寶。」遂與王期。及至期日，魔不為來，其王憂苦，如箭在身。佛為彼王說此頌矣。今引意證色可惱壞也）。又論云：「有說變礙故名為色（第二師釋色義也。變謂變壞，礙謂質礙也）。」若爾，極微應不名色，無變礙故。難第二釋也。由一極微不是積集，故無變礙也。此難不然，無一極微各處而住，眾微聚集變礙義成（答也。現在無一極微各處獨住也，以五識依緣必應積集也。依謂五根，緣謂五境。依緣極微，既必積集，變礙義成也乎）。過去、未來應不名色（難也。現在極微聚可得名為色，過未眾微散應不名為色矣）。此亦曾當有變礙故，及彼類故，如所燒薪（答也。過去曾變礙，未來生法當變礙故，故名為色。及彼類者，謂未來不生法。此不生法雖非當變礙，是變礙類故，亦名為色，猶如火薪也）。諸無表色應不名色（難也。根境積極微成變礙可名色，無表非極微，無變礙故，應非色）。有說表色有變礙故，無表隨彼，亦受色名。如樹動時影必隨動（解云：釋無表難。總有三師，此是第一，雜心師釋也。影從樹上起，樹動影必動，無表從表生，表色無表色也）。此釋不然，無變礙故。又表滅時，無表應滅，如樹滅時，影必隨滅（解云：此是論主破雜心師釋也。汝本以變礙釋色，無表無變礙，如何成色？故云此釋不然，無變礙故。又破喻云：影從樹上起，樹滅影亦滅，無表依表生，表滅無表滅。然表滅時無表不滅，滅既不等，色豈同乎？又《正理論》破云：隨心轉戒不從表生，應當非色也）。有釋所依大種有變礙故，無表業亦名為色（此是第二有宗釋無表難也）。若爾，所依有變礙故，眼識等五應亦名色（解云：此是論主破有宗也。無表依大種，隨大種名為色。眼識等依五根，隨根識名色也）。此難不齊，無表依止大種轉時，如影依樹、光依珠寶。眼識等五依眼等根則不如是，唯能為作助生緣故（解云：此文有宗古師救也。彼言論主將五識依五根難無表色，此難不齊也。謂無表依大種，大種親因。如影依樹，樹為親因；光依珠寶，珠寶為親因。良由大種望無表色具生等五因，故名親依。由是親依故，大種名色，無表亦名色也。眼等五根為增上緣，助生五識，但是疎依而非親依，故眼識等不隨五根名為色也）。此影依樹，光依珠寶言，且非符順毘婆沙宗。彼宗影等，顯色極微，各自依止四大種故（解云：此是論主破古師解，言有違宗失也。汝宗影之與光各自有大種以為親依，今言影依樹、光依珠寶，豈非違宗失乎？）。設許影、光依止樹、寶，而無表色不同彼依，彼許所依大種雖滅，而無表色不隨滅故（解云：此文是論主縱破古師，故言設許也。樹、寶若滅，影、光必滅。大種若滅，無表不滅，故言無表色不同彼依也。依既不同，為喻不成也）。復有別釋：彼所難言眼識等五所依不定，或有變礙，謂眼等五根；或無變礙，謂無間意。無表所依，則不如是。故前所難定為不齊。變礙名色，理得成就（解云：此是第三，論主為正釋也。無表依大種，但是變礙依，不同五識通有二依，故無表依大種得名色也）。上來正明色蘊。

(This verse was spoken by the Bodhisattva Śākyamuni for King Bahuprapañca. This king was greedy by nature and wished to gather oceanic jewels. A demon transformed himself into a minister, came to report to the king, and said, "I can gather the jewels." He then made an appointment with the king. When the appointed day arrived, the demon did not come; the king was distressed and afflicted, as if struck by an arrow. The Buddha spoke this verse for that king. Here it is cited to prove that matter is susceptible to affliction.) Furthermore, the treatise states: "Some say that it is called matter because it is susceptible to change and resistance (this is the second master's explanation of the meaning of matter; 'change' refers to alteration and decay, and 'resistance' refers to physical obstruction)." If that were so, an atom should not be called matter, because it has neither change nor resistance. This is an objection to the second explanation. Since a single atom is not an aggregation, it has neither change nor resistance. This objection is not correct: no single atom exists residing in isolation; when many atoms aggregate, the meaning of change and resistance is established (this is the reply. In the present, no single atom resides independently in isolation, because the basis and the cognitive object of the five consciousnesses must necessarily be aggregated. The basis refers to the five sense faculties; the cognitive object refers to the five sensory fields. Since the atoms of both basis and object must necessarily be aggregated, the meaning of change and resistance is indeed established). [Objection:] Past and future [matter] should not be called matter (an objection: an aggregation of atoms in the present can be called matter, but when the many atoms in the past and future are dispersed, they should not be called matter). These also previously had or will have change and resistance, and because they belong to that category, just like fuel that is burned (the reply: past [matter] previously had change and resistance, and things to be produced in the future will have change and resistance; therefore they are called matter. 'Belong to that category' refers to dharmas that will not be produced in the future. Although these unproduced dharmas will not have change and resistance, they belong to the category of what has change and resistance, and are therefore also called matter, just like fuel for fire). [Objection:] Non-informative matter (avijñapti-rūpa) should not be called matter (an objection: sense faculties and objects aggregate atoms to constitute change and resistance, so they can be called matter; but non-informative matter is not atomic and lacks change and resistance, so it should not be matter). Some say that because informative matter (vijñapti-rūpa) has change and resistance, non-informative matter follows it and also receives the name 'matter', just as when a tree moves, its shadow must move along with it (the commentary says: this resolves the objection regarding non-informative matter. There are three masters in total; this is the first, the explanation of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* masters: A shadow arises from a tree; when the tree moves, the shadow must move. Non-informative matter is produced from informative matter, so informative matter is material and non-informative matter is also material). This explanation is not correct, because [non-informative matter] lacks change and resistance. Furthermore, when informative matter perishes, non-informative matter should perish, just as when a tree is destroyed, its shadow must perish along with it (the commentary says: this is the treatise master refuting the explanation of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* masters. You originally explained matter through change and resistance; since non-informative matter lacks change and resistance, how can it constitute matter? Therefore he says, "This explanation is not correct, because it lacks change and resistance." He also refutes the simile, saying: A shadow arises from a tree; when the tree is destroyed, the shadow is also destroyed. Non-informative matter is produced based on informative matter; when informative matter perishes, non-informative matter should perish. Yet when informative matter perishes, non-informative matter does not perish; since their cessation is not equal, how could their materiality be the same? Moreover, the *Nyāyānusāra* refutes it, saying: Morality that proceeds following the mind does not arise from informative matter; it would follow that it is not matter). Another explains: Because the great elements (mahābhūta) on which it depends have change and resistance, non-informative karma is also called matter (this is the second, the Sarvāstivādin explanation of the objection regarding non-informative matter). If that were so, then because the basis on which they depend has change and resistance, the five consciousnesses—eye-consciousness and the rest—should also be called matter (the commentary says: this is the treatise master refuting the Sarvāstivādin. Non-informative matter depends on the great elements and is named matter after the great elements. Eye-consciousness and the rest depend on the five sense faculties; should consciousness be named matter after the faculties?). This objection is not parallel. When non-informative matter operates relying on the great elements, it is like a shadow relying on a tree or light relying on a jewel. The five consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and the rest, relying on the eye and other faculties, are not like this, because they only serve as auxiliary conditions for their arising (the commentary says: this text is an ancient Sarvāstivādin master's rescue. He says that the treatise master's objection to non-informative matter using the five consciousnesses relying on the five faculties is not a parallel objection. That is, non-informative matter depends on the great elements, and the great elements are its direct cause. Just as a shadow relies on a tree and the tree is its direct cause, or light relies on a jewel and the jewel is its direct cause. Indeed, because the great elements possess the five causes—production and the rest—with respect to non-informative matter, they are called its direct basis. Because of this direct basis, the great elements are called matter, and non-informative matter is also called matter. The five faculties, the eye and the rest, serve as sovereign conditions (adhipatipratyaya) that assist the arising of the five consciousnesses; they are merely indirect bases and not direct bases, so eye-consciousness and the rest are not named matter after the five faculties). This statement that "a shadow relies on a tree and light relies on a jewel" is, first of all, not in accord with the Vibhāṣā school. In that school, visible form atoms such as shadows and light each rely on their own four great elements (the commentary says: this is the treatise master refuting the ancient master's explanation, stating that it entails the fault of contradicting their own school. In your school, shadow and light each have their own great elements as their direct bases; now to say that a shadow relies on a tree and light relies on a jewel—how is that not the fault of contradicting your school?). Even granting that shadow and light rely on a tree and a jewel, non-informative matter is not like their reliance, because they admit that although the great elements serving as its basis perish, non-informative matter does not perish along with them (the commentary says: this text is the treatise master conceding the premise to refute the ancient master, hence he says "even granting". If the tree or jewel perishes, the shadow or light must perish. If the great elements perish, non-informative matter does not perish; therefore he says that non-informative matter is not like their reliance. Since the reliance is not the same, the simile fails). There is another explanation: As for the objection raised, the basis of the five consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and the rest, is indeterminate: either it has change and resistance, namely the five sense faculties, the eye and the rest; or it lacks change and resistance, namely the immediately preceding mind. The basis of non-informative matter is not like this. Therefore, the earlier objection is definitively not parallel. That which has change and resistance is called matter—this principle is properly established (the commentary says: this is the third, the treatise master providing the correct explanation. Non-informative matter depends on the great elements, which are exclusively bases with change and resistance, unlike the five consciousnesses which have two kinds of bases; therefore, non-informative matter depending on the great elements is entitled to the name 'matter'). The above directly clarifies the aggregate of matter.