瑜伽師地論略纂 14.42

14.42

論云風中無香味等者，問曰：亦應無觸。此觸塵本依風大等，故不例香。色即不定，其色微細，依欲界。准此文，即色觸必俱，香味不定，不同小論欲界一切色必不離香味，以有離者故。又離輪外所發光明，所餘大種及香等皆不可得，此與五因中持因相違，彼言等量不壞故。此如《對法》第一抄會。然太師云二說，西方一解云：有離質造色，如日輪光，遠從輪大造，非俱處有大。以此文為證，五因中持因。此據即質大語。二解：亦有大造如光，其大亦有別造其光等者，然從本輪中火大為緣引生故，微細不可得。此中言無，如光中豈無熱觸？熱觸言假，即以火大為體，豈有熱觸離火生耶？故知亦有。若先釋日中熱觸者，還是日輪中火煖熱分，非造光色火大也。聲准此知。　問曰：何故無香味？輕故，光中即無；色及熱觸重故，光中亦有。若觸重有者，火大光中應有，何故言無？今言無造光者，不言無日中熱火。若爾，亦可言香輕無與光同聚者，亦有遠別從日輪處熱分香耶？答曰：以輕故，如前文解。以有熱觸，無餘三大，言無，非火大亦無。

The treatise says that in the wind there are no smell, taste, and so forth. Question: Should there not also be no tangibility? This tangibility base is originally dependent on the wind element and so forth; hence it is not comparable to smell. Visible form is not fixed; its form is subtle and depends on the desire realm. According to this text, visible form and tangibility must be present together, whereas smell and taste are variable—unlike the Hīnayāna treatises which hold that all form in the desire realm is necessarily inseparable from smell and taste, because there are instances of separation. Furthermore, in the light emitted outside the disc, the remaining great elements, smell, and so forth cannot be found. This contradicts the "upholding cause" among the five causes, which states that they do not perish because they are equal in measure. This is harmonized as in the first fascicle of the Notes on the Abhidharma. However, the Great Master says there are two explanations. One explanation in the West states: There exists derived form that is separate from its substance, just as the light of the sun disc is produced from the great elements of the disc from afar, and does not have the great elements present at the same place. Taking this text as proof, the upholding cause among the five causes is spoken with reference to the great elements of the immediate substance. The second explanation is: there are also great elements that produce like light; those great elements also separately produce that light and so forth, yet because they are induced with the fire element in the root disc as a condition, they are subtle and cannot be found. What is said to be absent here—how could there be no heat touch in light? If heat touch is said to be nominal, it takes the fire element as its substance; how could heat touch arise separate from fire? Therefore we know it also exists. If one explains the heat touch in the sun as before, it is still the warmth and heat portion of the fire in the sun disc, not the fire element that produces the visible form of light. Sound should be understood accordingly. Question: Why are smell and taste absent? Because they are light, they are absent in light; because visible form and heat touch are heavy, they are present in light. If tangibility is heavy and present, the fire element should be present in light; why is it said to be absent? Now saying that there is none producing light does not mean that there is no hot fire in the sun. If so, could one also say that smell, being light, does not gather together with light, but there is also a fragrance from the hot portion originating separately from the sun disc from afar? Answer: Because it is light, as explained in the preceding text. Because heat touch is present and the remaining three great elements are absent, it is said to be absent; it is not that the fire element is also absent.