瑜伽論記 18.341

18.341

七、釋經密意，世尊又言觸謂外處若四大種若所造色有相違，何密意也。答：此諸大種乃至說澁滑等種種差別者，如說地風增故澁等，但就四大勢用時假名澁等等名造自類。生異類者謂眼等五根除觸餘除觸餘之四塵者，此四大外別有九處及法處一分，異類相造以對異類造色故，說自類能造所造。又若佛陀、又若佛陀提婆立一切造色皆攬大成皆觸相，今此經既言觸謂外處大種及所造，不言觸外別有餘九實色，云何論主大乘宗說十一色中唯觸是攬四大成，餘九色實不攬成耶？今為釋通，此經但說同觸處中自類，若觸處造是假，就彼大種而假建立，餘九造色不就大種假建立者，何故佛言觸謂外處若四大種所造，不言觸外別有餘色，此是佛陀提婆問，彼立四大外無不別一切所造色，皆是觸處所攝故。

Seventh, explaining the underlying intention of the sutra: The World-Honoured One also said that tangibles are external bases, whether the four great elements or derived forms. If there is a contradiction, what is the underlying intention? Answer: From "these great elements..." up to "speaking of various distinctions such as rough and smooth": just as it is said that due to the preponderance of earth and wind there is roughness, and so on; it is only in terms of the functional force of the four great elements that they are designated as rough and so forth, which is called "producing their own kind." "Producing a different kind" refers to the five faculties, eye and so forth, and the other four dusts excluding tangibles: apart from these four great elements, there are separately the nine bases and one portion of the dharmāyatana. Different kinds mutually produce one another, and because they are paired with derived forms of a different kind, they are called producing and produced of their own kind. Furthermore, Buddhadeva posited that all derived forms are assembled from the great elements and all have the characteristic of tangibles. Now this sutra already says that tangibles are external bases, [consisting of] the great elements and what is derived, without saying that apart from tangibles there are separately other nine real forms; how can the treatise master in the Mahāyāna tradition say that among the eleven forms only tangibles are assembled from the four great elements, while the other nine forms are real and not assembled? Now to resolve this: this sutra only speaks of their own kind within the same tangible base. If what is derived in the tangible base is nominal, provisionally established on the basis of those great elements, while the other nine derived forms are not provisionally established on the basis of the great elements, why did the Buddha say that tangibles are external bases, whether the four great elements or derived forms, without saying that apart from tangibles there are other forms? This is Buddhadeva's question, for he posited that apart from the four great elements, there are no different derived forms at all, and all are subsumed under the base of tangibles.