俱舍論頌疏論本 10.4

10.4

初釋義者，論云：「無明何義（問也）？謂體非明（答非智明）。若爾，無明應是眼等（難也。眼等五根亦非智明，以應是無明也）。既爾，此義應謂明無（此更別釋明無之處名無明也）。若爾，無明體應非有（難也。若明無之處名無明者，既是他無，體應非有也），為顯有體，義不濫餘。」頌曰（為顯有體者，不同第二釋。義不濫餘者，不同初釋也）：

First, as for explaining the definition, the treatise states: "What is the meaning of ignorance? (a question) It means its essence is not clear (reply: not the clarity of knowledge). If so, ignorance should be the eyes and so forth (an objection: the five sense faculties such as the eye are also not the clarity of knowledge, so they should be ignorance). If that is so, this meaning should signify the absence of clarity (this is a further separate explanation: where there is an absence of clarity is called ignorance). If so, the essence of ignorance would be non-existent (an objection: if where there is an absence of clarity is called ignorance, since it is merely the absence of something else, its essence would be non-existent). To show that it has a real essence, and that its meaning is not conflated with other things," the verse states (to show it has an essence differs from the second explanation; that its meaning is not conflated with other things differs from the first explanation):