成唯識論演祕 4.13

4.13

又《俱舍論》第十亦釋色非食云：「色亦可成段別飲噉，何緣非食？此不能益自所對根、解脫者故。夫名食者，必先資益自根大種後乃及餘。飲噉色時，於自根大尚不為益，況能及餘？由彼諸根境各別故，有時見色生喜樂者緣色觸生，是食非色。又不還者及阿羅漢解脫食貪，雖見種種上妙飲食，而無益故。」由此色處不名為食。又傳經部而有兩釋：一云除聲四塵為體，以聲虛疎無資用故。二云但用三塵為體，色、聲變時無資用故。

Moreover, the tenth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa also explains that visible form is not nutriment, saying: 'Visible form can also be made into pieces to be drunk and eaten; for what reason is it not nutriment? Because it cannot benefit its own corresponding faculty or one who is liberated. What is called nutriment must first benefit the great elements of its own faculty, and only afterwards reach the others. When drinking or eating visible form, it does not even benefit the great elements of its own faculty, much less reach the others! Because those faculties and objects are each distinct. If sometimes seeing visible form generates joy and pleasure, it is contact born of the condition of visible form; that is nutriment, not the visible form. Furthermore, non-returners and arhats are liberated from greed for food, so although they see various superior and wonderful food and drink, there is no benefit.' For this reason, the visible form base is not called nutriment. Moreover, tradition transmits two explanations of the Sautrāntika: One says that the four dusts excluding sound constitute its essence, because sound is insubstantial and diffuse, lacking supportive utility. The second says that only three dusts constitute its essence, because when visible form and sound undergo change, they lack supportive utility.