俱舍論頌疏論本 1.165

1.165

釋曰：初句正標，次句釋成。義不相應，論有三解。第一解云：三無為法與色等義不相應故，謂體非色，乃至非識。無為體非色，與色義不相應，乃至體非識，與識義不相應，故非蘊攝。問：「無為既非五蘊，何不立為第六蘊耶？」答：「亦不可說為第六蘊，彼與蘊義不相應故。聚義是蘊，無為非聚義，義不相應，不可立蘊。」第二解云：又言取蘊，為顯染依；染、淨二依，蘊言所顯。無為於此二義都無，義不相應，故不立蘊。取蘊有漏，故顯染依。無漏五蘊便是淨依，故但言蘊，便通染淨。第三解云：有說如瓶破非瓶，如是蘊息應非蘊。解云：謂瓶破非瓶，不是瓶攝。蘊息是無為，無為非蘊攝。此第三釋，論主破云：彼於處、界例應成失。解云：此意者，蘊息是無為，無為非蘊攝。處、界息處是無為，亦可無為非處、界，故將處、界為例，彼第三解成過失也。

Explanation: The first line states [the proposition] directly, and the second line explains and establishes it. As for 'their meanings do not correspond', the treatise presents three explanations. The first explanation states: Because the three unconditioned phenomena do not correspond in meaning to form and the rest—that is to say, their intrinsic nature is not form, up to and including their not being consciousness. Since the intrinsic nature of the unconditioned is not form, it does not correspond to the meaning of form; up to, its intrinsic nature is not consciousness, and so it does not correspond to the meaning of consciousness; therefore it is not subsumed under the skandhas. Question: 'Since the unconditioned is not among the five skandhas, why is it not established as a sixth skandha?' Answer: 'It also cannot be spoken of as a sixth skandha, because it does not correspond to the meaning of a skandha. The meaning of "heap" (accumulation) is skandha; the unconditioned does not have the meaning of a heap, so their meanings do not correspond, and it cannot be established as a skandha.' The second explanation states: Furthermore, the term 'appropriated skandhas' (upādānaskandha) is used to show the basis of defilement; the two bases of defilement and purification are shown by the word 'skandha'. The unconditioned possesses neither of these two meanings at all; because their meanings do not correspond, it is not established as a skandha. The appropriated skandhas are with out-flow (sāsrava), hence they show the basis of defilement. The five skandhas without out-flow (anāsrava) are the basis of purification; thus merely using the word 'skandha' covers both defilement and purification. The third explanation states: Some say that just as a broken vase is not a vase, so the cessation of the skandhas ought not to be a skandha. Explanation: This means that a broken vase is not a vase and is not subsumed under 'vase'. The cessation of the skandhas is the unconditioned, and the unconditioned is not subsumed under the skandhas. Refuting this third explanation, the author of the treatise states: In that case, there would analogously be an error regarding the āyatanas and dhātus. Explanation: The idea is that the cessation of the skandhas is the unconditioned, and the unconditioned is not subsumed under the skandhas. The cessation of the āyatanas and dhātus is also the unconditioned, so it would follow that the unconditioned is not an āyatana or dhātu either. Thus, using the āyatanas and dhātus as an analogy, that third explanation is shown to be faulty.