Grasping-Aggregates, Elements, and the Reality of Reflections
Fascicle 75 treats the five grasping-aggregates and the puzzle of fear's own nature, then the six elements — earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, with a sustained inquiry into whether space itself can be known to exist — before closing with form and formless dharma, visible and invisible dharma, and a final debate over whether mirror-reflections and echoes are genuinely real. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 75 continues the Ten Gates Nyāsa (結蘊第二中十門納息第四之五), treating the five grasping-aggregates (五取蘊), the six elements (六界), form and formless dharma (有色無色法), and visible and invisible dharma (有見無見法) in sequence. Terms established in earlier fascicles recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. The Five Grasping-Aggregates, and the Form-Grasping-Aggregate's Own Definition
Opening a new topic within the same Ten Gates Nyāsa, the treatise turns to the five grasping-aggregates — form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness — composed, as always, to analyze at length a scripture that names them without elaborating. The form-grasping-aggregate is defined as any contaminated, graspable form across the three times that gives rise to desire, craving, hatred, delusion, or fear, or to any secondary affliction riding along with a given mental factor, with desire and craving tied to the fetter of craving, hatred to the fetter of aversion, and delusion to the fetter of ignorance.
結蘊第二中十門納息第四之五五取蘊者。謂色取蘊受取蘊想取蘊行取蘊識取蘊。問何故作此論。
Continuing the Fetters Aggregate within the Ten Gates Nyāsa, part five. As for the five grasping-aggregates: the form-grasping-aggregate, the feeling-grasping-aggregate, the perception-grasping-aggregate, the formations-grasping-aggregate, and the consciousness-grasping-aggregate. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed?
答為欲分別契經義故。謂契經說。有五取蘊。謂色取蘊乃至識取蘊。契經雖作是說而不廣辯其義。經是此論所依根本。彼不說者今應分別故作斯論。問色取蘊云何。答若色有漏有取。彼色在過去未來現在。或起欲或起貪或起瞋或起癡或起怖。或復隨起一心所隨煩惱是名色取蘊。此中起欲起貪者謂起愛結。起瞋者謂起恚結。起癡者謂起無明結。起怖者有作是說。此中不應說或起怖。所以者何。
The answer: in order to analyze the meaning of a certain scripture. That is, a scripture states that there exist five grasping-aggregates, the form-grasping-aggregate, and so on, up through, the consciousness-grasping-aggregate, and, although it states this much, it does not analyze this at any length — this scripture being the very root upon which this treatise depends, and, since it does not itself state what remains to be stated, this treatise now wishes to analyze it, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. One asks: what is the form-grasping-aggregate? The answer: whatever form is contaminated and involves grasping — that form, whether past, future, or present, whether giving rise to desire, to craving, to hatred, to delusion, or to fear, or whether giving rise to any one of the secondary afflictions that follow along with a given mental factor — is named the form-grasping-aggregate. Here, giving rise to desire and to craving refers to giving rise to the fetter of craving; giving rise to hatred refers to giving rise to the fetter of aversion; giving rise to delusion refers to giving rise to the fetter of ignorance. As for giving rise to fear: there are those who say that this ought not to be mentioned as a separate case at all, for what reason?
Tying each of the four ordinary afflictions in this list to one of the classical fetters, while leaving fear to be argued over separately in what follows, already signals that fear occupies a different logical status here than desire, hatred, or delusion — it is not simply a fifth member of the same list, but a phenomenon whose own basic nature the treatise still needs to establish before it can be assigned a place at all.
2. What Is Fear? Three Rival Theories of Its Own Nature
Is fear simply a redundant name for affliction in general, or does it possess some more specific nature of its own? Three masters offer three different candidates — the view of self, craving, and ignorance respectively — each defended by the observation that whoever holds this particular affliction is, for the most part, fearful. The compilers reject all three reductions, insisting that fear is its own distinct mental factor, associated with mind, existing only within the desire realm and nowhere in the two upper realms.
怖即煩惱。若說煩惱即已說怖。問若爾此怖以何煩惱為自性。有作是說。以有身見為自性。所以者何。執有我者多怖畏故。若說有身見即已說怖。有餘師說。以愛為自性。所以者何。若有愛者多怖畏故。復有說者。以無智為自性。所以者何。諸無智者多怖畏故。若說無明即已說怖。評曰應作是說。此所起中應別說怖。所以者何。
Fear is itself simply affliction — to speak of affliction is already to have spoken of fear. One asks: granting this, what affliction serves as this fear's own nature? There are those who say: the view of self serves as its own nature, for what reason? Because whoever grasps at the existence of a self is, for the most part, fearful — to speak of the view of self is already to have spoken of fear. Other masters say: craving serves as its own nature, for what reason? Because whoever possesses craving is, for the most part, fearful. Others, further, say: ignorance serves as its own nature, for what reason? Because whoever is ignorant is, for the most part, fearful — to speak of ignorance is already to have spoken of fear. The compilers say: one should say as follows — among these instances that give rise to affliction, fear ought to be mentioned as a separate case in its own right, for what reason?
That three respected masters each try to dissolve fear into some other, already-recognized affliction, rather than granting it independent status, reveals an economizing instinct running through this whole literature: multiplying mental factors is treated as a cost to be justified, not a default move, so fear has to actively earn its own place in the list rather than simply being handed one.
3. The Radiant Gods' Terror at the Kalpa-Fire, and a Verse on the Long-Lived
If fear belongs to the desire realm alone, how is a scripture's own account to be reconciled — the gods of pure radiant light, witnessing the kalpa-fire consume the empty palaces of Brahmā, giving rise to fear in their own hearts, and being comforted by their elders' assurance that this same fire has always, in the end, been extinguished there? A companion verse, too, speaks of long-lived gods harboring dread at the sight of a lion-like power. Both passages, the treatise answers, use the word "fear" loosely, meaning aversion — a state that, unlike fear proper, does pervade all three realms.
有別心所與心相應。是怖自性此即攝在。復有所餘如是類法與心相應心所法內非諸煩惱。問此怖自性於何處有。答在欲界有非上二界。問若怖自性色界中無。云何釋通契經所說。如契經說。苾芻當知。有極光淨先生。諸天見後生者覩劫火焰心生恐怖。而慰喻言。
There exists a distinct mental factor, associated with mind, that is precisely fear's own nature, gathered here within this very list; there exist, further, other dharmas of this same kind, associated with mind, mental factors that are not themselves any of the afflictions at all. One asks: where does this own-nature of fear exist? The answer: it exists in the desire realm, not in either of the upper two realms. One asks: if fear's own nature does not exist within the form realm, how is a certain scripture's own statement to be reconciled? As the scripture states: monks, you should know, there are gods of pure radiant light, born earlier, who, beholding those born later witness the very flames of the kalpa-fire and give rise to fear in their own hearts, and are comforted with these words:
大仙勿怖大仙勿怖。我數曾見此劫火焰。燒空梵宮即於彼滅。伽他所說。復云何通。如說。
'Great sages, do not be afraid; great sages, do not be afraid — we ourselves have repeatedly witnessed this very kalpa-fire, burning the empty palaces of Brahmā, only to be extinguished right there.' How, then, is a verse's own statement to be reconciled, as it states:
聞說長壽天 有妙色名譽深心懷厭怖 如鹿對師子答經頌於厭以怖聲說。問若爾厭怖有何差別。答名即差別。謂彼名厭此名為怖。尊者世友作如是說。怖唯欲界厭通三界。復作是說。
'Hearing that the long-lived gods, possessing exquisite form and renown, still harbor deep aversion and dread within their own hearts, exactly as a deer before a lion.' The answer: the scripture and the verse both speak of aversion using the term fear. One asks: granting this, what distinction is there between aversion and fear? The answer: they differ in name alone — that one is named aversion, this one is named fear. The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: fear belongs to the desire realm alone; aversion pervades all three realms. Others, further, say:
Resolving an apparent scriptural contradiction by drawing a technical distinction the ordinary language of the sutra itself does not observe — treating "fear" in these two passages as really meaning "aversion" — is a move this treatise relies on constantly: canonical wording is trusted as authoritative, but never trusted to be terminologically precise in the treatise's own narrower, more exacting sense.
4. Fear Versus Aversion, and the Five Fears No Noble One Feels
Vasumitra locates the difference between fear and aversion in scope — fear confined to the desire realm, aversion spanning all three — while others locate it in moral quality, or say fear may be neutral where aversion is always wholesome, or, as the Great Virtuous One puts it most memorably, that apprehension over some anticipated loss, together with the wish to escape it, is fear, while revulsion toward a loss already suffered is aversion. A further debate over who feels fear at all is settled by distinguishing the ordinary person's fear from the noble one's: the noble one has become free of the five great fears — of not surviving, of ill repute, of timidity before an assembly, of death, and of an evil destiny — yet may still feel lesser, temporary fears, available even to the learner and the non-learner alike, the Buddha alone wholly exempt.
怖在煩惱品厭在善根品。復作是說。怖通染污無覆無記厭唯是善。
fear belongs to the category of affliction; aversion belongs to the category of wholesome roots. Others, further, say: fear may be either defiled or neutral-and-unobscured; aversion is solely wholesome.
大德說曰。於衰損事深心疑慮欲得遠離說名為怖。已得遠離深心憎惡說名為厭。如是名為厭怖差別。問異生聖者誰有怖耶。有作是說。異生有怖聖者無怖。所以者何。聖者已離五怖畏故。五怖畏者。一不活畏。二惡名畏。三怯眾畏。四命終畏。五惡趣畏。評曰應作是說。異生聖者二皆有怖。問聖者已離五種怖畏如何有怖。答聖者雖無五種大怖而有所餘暫時小怖。問何等聖者有餘小怖。為有學位無學位耶。有作是說。唯有學位有餘小怖。以怖唯是煩惱品故。評曰應作是說。學無學位皆容有怖。學謂預流一來不還者。無學謂阿羅漢獨覺除佛世尊。佛無恐怖毛竪等事。於一切法如實通達得無畏故。或復隨起一心所隨煩惱者。謂緣色生諸餘遍行及修所斷餘煩惱等問受取蘊云何。答若受有漏有取。彼受在過去未來現在。
The Great Virtuous One says: with respect to some matter of decline or loss, deep doubt and apprehension, together with the wish to be free of it, is named fear; having already become free of it, deep aversion and revulsion toward it is named aversion — such, then, is the distinction between aversion and fear. One asks: which experiences fear — the ordinary person, or the noble one? There are those who say: the ordinary person experiences fear; the noble one does not, for what reason? Because the noble one has already become free of the five fears. As for the five fears: first, the fear of not surviving; second, the fear of ill repute; third, the fear of timidity before an assembly; fourth, the fear of death; fifth, the fear of an evil destiny. The compilers say: one should say as follows — both the ordinary person and the noble one experience fear. One asks: if the noble one has already become free of the five fears, how could he still experience fear at all? The answer: although the noble one is free of these five great fears, he still experiences certain other, minor, temporary fears. One asks: which noble ones experience these other, minor fears — those at the stage of a learner, or those at the stage of a non-learner? There are those who say: only those at the stage of a learner experience these other, minor fears, since fear belongs solely to the category of affliction. The compilers say: one should say as follows — both the learner's and the non-learner's stage may admit of fear. As for the learner: this refers to the stream-enterer, the once-returner, and the non-returner. As for the non-learner: this refers to the arhat and the solitary-realizer, the Buddha alone excepted, since the Buddha experiences no fear, no trembling, and the like at all, having attained, with respect to every dharma whatsoever, genuine, direct penetration, and thereby fearlessness. As for giving rise to any one of the secondary afflictions that follow along with a given mental factor: this refers to whatever universally pervasive factor and whatever other affliction abandoned by cultivation arises with reference to form. One asks: what is the feeling-grasping-aggregate? The answer: whatever feeling is contaminated and involves grasping — that feeling, whether past, future, or present,
Carving out an exemption for the Buddha alone, even after already granting that arhats and other non-learners can still feel minor fears, draws the sharpest possible line between liberation from affliction in general and the Buddha's own total, direct penetration of every dharma — an arhat's freedom is real but leaves room for small residual apprehensions, while the Buddha's fearlessness is total precisely because nothing whatsoever remains for him to apprehend.
5. The Remaining Four Grasping-Aggregates
The feeling-grasping-aggregate receives the identical definition already given for form, differing only in that its secondary afflictions are those tied to feeling rather than color; the perception-, formations-, and consciousness-grasping-aggregates follow the same pattern by direct analogy, each substituting its own aggregate for the term "form" throughout.
或起欲或起貪或起瞋或起癡或起怖。或復隨起一心所隨煩惱。是名受取蘊。此中廣釋如前。應知有差別者。謂隨起一隨煩惱中。緣此受生諸餘遍行及見所斷餘非遍行。
whether giving rise to desire, to craving, to hatred, to delusion, or to fear, or whether giving rise to any one of the secondary afflictions that follow along with a given mental factor, is named the feeling-grasping-aggregate. Here, this should be explained at length exactly as before, with the one difference that, as for giving rise to any one of the secondary afflictions that follow along with a given mental factor, this refers to whatever universally pervasive factor and whatever other affliction abandoned by seeing, not itself a universally pervasive factor, arises with reference to this feeling.
如受取蘊如是想行及識取蘊廣說。應知是名取蘊自性我物自體相分本性。
Exactly as with the feeling-grasping-aggregate, so too should the perception-, formations-, and consciousness-grasping-aggregates be stated at full length, in the corresponding manner. Such, then, is named the own-nature of the various grasping-aggregates — their own substance, own character, and inherent nature.
Stating the feeling-grasping-aggregate's definition in full while merely gesturing at the remaining three by analogy is itself a small piece of evidence about which distinctions this treatise judges load-bearing: once the underlying logical form of the definition has been established once, in detail, repeating it four more times in full would add length without adding content.
6. Eleven Reasons for the Name "Grasping-Aggregate"
Why "grasping-aggregate" at all? The treatise offers a cascade of near-synonymous glosses — arising from grasping and capable of giving rise to it; turned by grasping and capable of turning it; drawn forth, nourished, grown, increased, and caused to flow by grasping and capable of the same in return; belonging to grasping exactly as a minister belongs to a king, so that any contaminated formation, asked to whom it belongs, must answer "to grasping"; serving as the very place where grasping arises, abides, and takes hold, grows, and is nourished; clinging here as dust clings to a stained garment, or as fish and turtles delight in a river's pool; and, finally, serving as the very nest and dwelling from which craving, hatred, delusion, conceit, view, and doubt are all able to grow. This naming is understood strictly by same-class grasping across realm and ground, though a single continuum may still admit some confusion, since even an external object may be named a grasping-aggregate with reference to another sentient being's grasping of it, the two mutually nourishing one another.
已說自性。所以今當說。問何故名取蘊。取蘊是何義。答此從取生復能生取故名取蘊。復次此從取轉復能轉取故名取蘊。復次此由取引復能引取故名取蘊。復次此由取長養復能長養取故名取蘊。復次此由取增廣復能增廣取故名取蘊。復次此由取流派復能流派取故名取蘊。復次此蘊屬取故名取蘊。如臣屬王故名王臣。諸有漏行都無有我。設有問言。汝屬於誰。應正答言。我屬於取。復次諸取於此應生時生。應住時住。應執時執。故名取蘊。復次諸取於此增長廣大故名取蘊。復次諸取於此長養攝受故名取蘊。復次諸取於此染著難捨。猶如塵垢染著衣服故名取蘊。復次諸取於此深生樂著。如魚鼈等樂著河池故名取蘊。復次此是諸取巢穴舍宅故名取蘊。謂依此故貪瞋癡慢見疑纏垢。皆得生長。應知此中依同分取立取蘊名。謂依欲界取名欲界取蘊。依色界取名色界取蘊。依無色界取名無色界取蘊。如依三界同分取立取蘊名。依九地取應知亦爾。此於界地無雜亂故。若於相續容有雜亂。謂依自取他蘊名取蘊亦依他取自蘊名取蘊。若於相續無雜亂者。一切外物應非取蘊。以外物中無諸取故。然諸外物依有情取立取蘊名互生長故。
Having already spoken of the own-nature of the grasping-aggregates, the very reason for this shall now be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named a grasping-aggregate? What is the meaning of a grasping-aggregate? The answer: this arises from grasping, and is, further, capable of giving rise to grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this turns from grasping, and is, further, capable of turning grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this is drawn forth by grasping, and is, further, capable of drawing forth grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this is nourished and grown by grasping, and is, further, capable of nourishing and growing grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this is increased and enlarged by grasping, and is, further, capable of increasing and enlarging grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this flows forth from grasping, and is, further, capable of causing grasping to flow forth, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this aggregate belongs to grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate — exactly as a minister belongs to a king and is therefore named the king's own minister — every contaminated formation possessing no self whatsoever, so that, were one to ask, to whom do you belong, one ought properly to answer: I belong to grasping. Further, whatever grasping arises here, arises precisely when it ought to arise, abides precisely when it ought to abide, and takes hold precisely when it ought to take hold, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, whatever grasping grows and enlarges itself here does so, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, whatever grasping is nourished and embraced here is so, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, whatever grasping clings here, defiled and difficult to relinquish, exactly as dust clings, staining a garment, is so, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, whatever grasping deeply delights and clings here, exactly as fish and turtles delight in clinging to a river or a pool, is so, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, this is the very nest and dwelling of every grasping, and it is for this reason that it is named a grasping-aggregate — that is, it is by relying upon this that craving, hatred, delusion, conceit, view, and the entanglements and stains of doubt are all able to grow. It should be understood that, here, the name grasping-aggregate is established with reference to a same-class grasping — that is, with reference to the grasping of the desire realm, it is named the desire realm's own grasping-aggregate; with reference to the grasping of the form realm, it is named the form realm's own grasping-aggregate; with reference to the grasping of the formless realm, it is named the formless realm's own grasping-aggregate. Exactly as the name grasping-aggregate is established with reference to a same-class grasping across the three realms, so too should it be understood, likewise, with reference to the nine grounds. This holds without any confusion at all with respect to realm and ground; yet, with respect to a single continuum, some confusion may indeed be admitted — that is, with reference to one's own grasping, another's own aggregate may be named a grasping-aggregate, and, with reference to another's own grasping, one's own aggregate may likewise be named a grasping-aggregate. Were no confusion at all admitted with respect to a single continuum, then every external object whatsoever ought not to count as a grasping-aggregate, since no genuine grasping exists among external objects — and yet these external objects, too, receive the name grasping-aggregate with reference to a sentient being's own grasping, since the two mutually nourish and grow one another.
The king's-minister analogy carries a striking metaphysical claim past almost unnoticed: every contaminated formation, asked to whom it belongs, has only one honest answer — to grasping, since no genuine self exists to claim ownership instead. The whole elaborate cascade of near-synonyms is really one sustained argument that a formation's very identity as "grasping-aggregate" already forecloses the person-view this treatise is everywhere concerned to refute.
7. Aggregate Versus Grasping-Aggregate, and the Six Elements Newly Opened
An aggregate and a grasping-aggregate differ in five ways: the former spans both contaminated and undefiled dharma, the latter only the contaminated; the former is gathered within three truths, the latter within two; the former circulates and may return to cessation, the latter only ever circulates. A wholly new topic then opens — the six elements, earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness — composed, the treatise first insists, simply because the treatise's own author wished it so, since a master expounding the true character of dharmas ought never to be interrogated on his own motives.
問蘊與取蘊有何差別。答名即差別彼名為蘊此名取蘊。復次蘊通有漏無漏。取蘊唯有漏。復次蘊攝三諦取蘊攝二諦。復次蘊攝十七界一界少分。取蘊攝十五界三界少分。復次蘊攝十一處一處少分。取蘊攝十處二處少分。復次蘊攝五蘊取蘊攝五蘊各少分。復次於蘊中有流轉者受訶責。有還滅者受讚歎。於取蘊中有流轉者受訶責。無還滅者受讚歎。蘊與取蘊是謂差別六界者。謂地界水界火界風界空界識界。問何故作此論。答是作論者意欲爾故。謂本論師隨自意欲而作此論不違法相故不應責。復次不應詰問此本論師。所以者何。
One asks: what distinction is there between an aggregate and a grasping-aggregate? The answer: they differ in name — that one is named an aggregate, this one is named a grasping-aggregate. Further, an aggregate spans both the contaminated and the undefiled; a grasping-aggregate is solely contaminated. Further, an aggregate is gathered within three of the truths; a grasping-aggregate is gathered within two of the truths. Further, an aggregate is gathered within seventeen elements, together with a portion of one further element; a grasping-aggregate is gathered within fifteen elements, together with a portion of three further elements. Further, an aggregate is gathered within eleven sense-fields, together with a portion of one further sense-field; a grasping-aggregate is gathered within ten sense-fields, together with a portion of two further sense-fields. Further, an aggregate is gathered within all five aggregates; a grasping-aggregate is gathered within a portion of each of the five aggregates. Further, whatever circulates within the aggregates receives reproach, while whatever returns to cessation receives praise; whatever circulates within the grasping-aggregates receives reproach, while there exists no case of returning to cessation within the grasping-aggregates that receives praise. Such, then, is the distinction between an aggregate and a grasping-aggregate. As for the six elements: the earth-element, the water-element, the fire-element, the wind-element, the space-element, and the consciousness-element. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is precisely because the author of this treatise wished it so — that is, the very master who composed this treatise, following his own intent, composed this treatise, without contradicting the true character of the dharmas, and it is for this reason that this ought not to be questioned. Further, this master who composed the treatise ought not to be interrogated on this point at all, for what reason?
世尊施設十八界已。復於此中略出少分施設六界。故此六界十八界中攝五界全四界少分。五界全者。謂前五識界。四界少分者。謂色觸意及意識界。此中空界攝色界少分。地水火風界攝觸界少分。識界攝意界意識界少分。以此二界通有漏無漏。識界唯攝有漏分故。
The World-Honored One, having already set forth the eighteen elements, further extracted, from among them, a smaller portion, and set forth these six elements — and it is for this reason that these six elements are gathered within the eighteen elements as five elements in full, together with a portion of four further elements. As for the five elements in full: this refers to the first five consciousness-elements. As for the portion of four further elements: this refers to the color-, touch-, mind-, and mind-consciousness-elements. Here, the space-element is gathered within a portion of the color-element; the earth-, water-, fire-, and wind-elements are gathered within a portion of the touch-element; the consciousness-element is gathered within a portion of the mind-element and the mind-consciousness-element, since these latter two elements span both the contaminated and the undefiled, while the consciousness-element gathers in only their contaminated portion.
Answering "why was this treatise composed" with, in effect, "because its author chose to compose it" is a rare moment of the treatise declining its own usual practice of exhaustive justification — and the refusal itself is instructive: some explanatory demands, it suggests, are simply out of place once a systematic exposition already accords with the true nature of the dharmas being described.
8. Why Six Elements Rather Than Eighteen? Observing the Fitness of Those Converted
Setting the treatise's own author aside, why did the Buddha himself extract a smaller portion from the eighteen elements to teach these six? Because those to be converted differ — some ignorant of only a small portion of the knowable, others of the whole of it; some sharp-facultied, others dull; some suited to the wisdom that merely opens a way, others to the wisdom that fully expounds; some preferring brevity, others breadth. The six elements further display, in miniature, several of the eighteen elements' own internal divisions — form against the formless, visible against invisible, resistant against non-resistant, associated against dissociated — each teaching implicitly covering its own counterpart within the fuller list.
由此六界十八界中攝五界全四界少分。問置本論師。世尊何故十八界中略出少分施設六界。答觀受化者所宜差別。謂有所化於所知境但愚少分。或有所化於所知境愚於一切。愚少分者為說六界。愚一切者為說十八界。復次世尊所化有利根者。有鈍根者。為利根者說六界。為鈍根者說十八界。復次世尊所化有開智者有說智者。為開智者說六界。為說智者。說十八界。復次世尊所化有樂略者有樂廣者。為樂略者說六界。為樂廣者說十八界。復次於十八界為略現門故說六界謂十八界中有是色有非色。若說前五界。當知已說諸是色界。若說識界。當知已說諸非色界。復次十八界中有有見有無見。
By this, these six elements are gathered within the eighteen elements as five elements in full, together with a portion of four further elements. One asks, setting aside the treatise's own author for the moment: for what reason did the World-Honored One himself extract a smaller portion from the eighteen elements to set forth these six elements? The answer: this observes the distinct fitness of those to be converted — that is, some to be converted are ignorant of only a small portion of what is to be known, while others are ignorant of the whole of it; for the former, the six elements are taught; for the latter, the eighteen elements are taught. Further, among those the World-Honored One converts, some possess sharp faculties, others dull ones; for the sharp-facultied, the six elements are taught; for the dull-facultied, the eighteen elements are taught. Further, among those the World-Honored One converts, some possess the wisdom that opens the way, others the wisdom that expounds; for the former, the six elements are taught; for the latter, the eighteen elements are taught. Further, among those the World-Honored One converts, some prefer brevity, others breadth; for the former, the six elements are taught; for the latter, the eighteen elements are taught. Further, this is in order to display, in brief, a gateway within the eighteen elements — that is, among the eighteen elements, some are form, some are not form; teaching the first five elements already implicitly states every element that is form; teaching the consciousness-element already implicitly states every element that is not form. Further, among the eighteen elements,
若說空界。當知已說諸有見者若說餘五界。當知已說諸無見者。復次十八界中有有對有無對。若說前五界。當知已說諸有對者。若說識界。當知已說諸無對者。復次十八界中有相應有不相應。若說識界。當知已說諸相應者。若說餘五界。當知已說不相應者。如相應不相應。如是有所依無所依。有所緣無所緣。有行相無行相。有警覺無警覺。應知亦爾。復次由此六界能生能養能長有情色無色身故復施設。能生者。謂識界。能養者謂地水火風界。能長者謂空界。
some are visible, some are invisible; teaching the space-element already implicitly states every visible element; teaching the remaining five elements already implicitly states every invisible element. Further, among the eighteen elements, some are resistant, some are non-resistant; teaching the first five elements already implicitly states every resistant element; teaching the consciousness-element already implicitly states every non-resistant element. Further, among the eighteen elements, some are associated, some are dissociated; teaching the consciousness-element already implicitly states every associated element; teaching the remaining five elements already implicitly states every dissociated element. Exactly as with associated and dissociated, so too should possessing or lacking a support, an object, an aspect, and alertness be understood likewise.
That the very same body of truth can be legitimately delivered as either six elements or eighteen, depending entirely on who is listening, is a working statement of this treatise's own pedagogical relativism: the number and granularity of a teaching is not a fact about the dharmas themselves, which remain constant either way, but a fact about the fitness of the audience receiving it.
9. Generating, Nourishing, and the Root-Matter of a Being
The six elements are further singled out because they generate, nourish, and grow a sentient being's material and immaterial body from the very moment of conception onward — consciousness generating, earth, water, fire, and wind nourishing, space growing — and because they constitute a being's root-matter, pervasive matter, and beginningless matter, present without interruption from the kalala's earliest, still-undifferentiated stage through the fully differentiated body of the praśākhā and beyond. The Venerable Ghoṣa adds that it is by these six elements that entry into the mother's womb is itself achieved.
復次由此六界能引能持能增有情色無色身故復施設。能引者謂識界。能持者謂地水火風界。能增者謂空界。復次由此六界是根本有情事。是遍行有情事。是無始有情事。是無分別有分別有情事故復施設。根本有情事者。謂欲色界受生有情。從結生心乃至死有。無此六界無勢用時。遍行有情事者。謂欲色界一切有情從結生心乃至死有。無此六界不增上時。無始有情事者。謂不可知本際已來諸有情類。從結生心乃至死有。無此六界不作用時無分別有分別有情事者。謂有有情未可分別是男是女。如羯剌藍頞部曇閉尸揵南位。如是六界亦有勢用。或有有情已可分別是男是女鉢羅奢佉等位。如是六界亦有勢用。尊者妙音作如是說。由此六界得入母胎勢用增上故復施設。由如是等種種因緣故。佛世尊於十八界略出少分。施設如是六界差別。
Further, these six elements are capable of generating, of nourishing, and of growing a sentient being's own material and immaterial body, and it is for this reason that they are further set forth — as for generating: this refers to the consciousness-element; as for nourishing: this refers to the earth-, water-, fire-, and wind-elements; as for growing: this refers to the space-element. Further, these six elements are capable of drawing forth, of sustaining, and of increasing a sentient being's own material and immaterial body, and it is for this reason that they are further set forth — as for drawing forth: this refers to the consciousness-element; as for sustaining: this refers to the earth-, water-, fire-, and wind-elements; as for increasing: this refers to the space-element. Further, these six elements are the very root-matter of a being, the pervasive matter of a being, the beginningless matter of a being, and the matter of a being both undifferentiated and differentiated, and it is for this reason that they are further set forth. As for the root-matter of a being: this refers to a being of the desire or form realm receiving rebirth, from the very mind of conception up through the death-existence, there being no time at all when these six elements lack their own operative power. As for the pervasive matter of a being: this refers to every being of the desire or form realm, from the very mind of conception up through the death-existence, there being no time at all when these six elements fail to be dominant. As for the beginningless matter of a being: this refers to every kind of being, from a beginning point that cannot be known, from the very mind of conception up through the death-existence, there being no time at all when these six elements fail to function. As for the matter of a being both undifferentiated and differentiated: this refers to the fact that there exists a being not yet differentiable as male or female, as at the stages of the kalala, the arbuda, the peśī, and the ghana, and these six elements still possess their own operative power at even that stage; there exists, further, a being already differentiable as male or female, as at the stage of the praśākhā and the rest, and these six elements likewise possess their own operative power there. The Venerable Ghoṣa says as follows: it is by these six elements that entry into the mother's womb is achieved, their own operative power being dominant there, and it is for this reason that they are further set forth. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that the Buddha, the World-Honored One, extracted a smaller portion from the eighteen elements and set forth these distinct six elements.
Tracing these six elements' operative power all the way back to the kalala stage, before a body is even differentiable as male or female, quietly closes off any account of personal identity that might try to locate a self at some later, more developed point in gestation: on this reckoning there is no moment, however early, at which a being's continuity is anything other than these same six elements already at work.
10. The Earth-, Water-, Fire-, and Wind-Elements
Each of the four familiar elements receives the identical treatment: a single defining characteristic — solidity, moisture, warmth, and lightness-together-with-motion respectively — that admits boundless internal variation between an internal, bodily portion (hair, blood, marrow, breath, and the rest) and an external, worldly portion (mountains and metal, rivers and oceans, flame and blaze, the four directions' own winds), the two portions gathered into a single element purely on the basis of sharing the same underlying nature. A pointed aside on the wind-element notes that internal warmth actually exceeds external fire in potency, since food left over an external flame all day retains its shape, while the belly transforms it within moments.
問地界云何。答堅性。雖此地界總是堅性。而此堅性差別無邊。謂內外分堅性各異。內分中堅性者。謂髮毛爪齒塵垢皮肉。筋骨脈心脾腎肝肺胃肚腸糞。生藏熟藏手足支節。如是等中所有堅性。此諸堅性有勝有劣。謂足堅性勝手堅性。若諸有情少時手行手皮血肉即便壞盡。若以足行盡眾同分足皮血肉都無損壞。由此故知內分堅性有勝有劣。外分中堅性者。謂地山礫石塼瓦草木。螺蜯䗾蛤銅鐵金銀白鑞鉛錫末尼真珠珊瑚琥珀珂貝璧玉。帝青大青末羅羯多。杵藏石藏颯頗胝迦。及紅頗黎吠琉璃等所有堅性。此內外分種種堅性。
One asks: what is the earth-element? The answer: solidity. Although this earth-element is, in every case, solidity, this very solidity's own distinctions are boundless, since solidity differs between the internal and the external portion. As for solidity within the internal portion: this refers to the solidity found in hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, dust and grime, skin, flesh, sinew, bone, blood-vessel, heart, spleen, kidney, liver, lung, stomach, belly, intestine, undigested food, digested food, hand, foot, and every limb and joint. This solidity admits of both a superior and an inferior grade — that is, the solidity of the foot surpasses the solidity of the hand, since, were a sentient being to walk upon his own hands for even a brief while, the skin, blood, and flesh of those hands would soon be utterly worn away, while, were he to walk on his own feet throughout the whole of his own common class of being, the skin, blood, and flesh of those feet would suffer no damage whatsoever — and it is by this that it is known that the internal portion's own solidity admits of both a superior and an inferior grade. As for solidity within the external portion: this refers to the solidity found in earth, mountains, gravel, stone, brick, tile, grass, wood, spiral shells, oysters, mussels, clams, copper, iron, gold, silver, tin, lead, pewter, jewels, pearls, coral, amber, mother-of-pearl, shells, jade, sapphire, lapis lazuli, emerald, mūrdha, crystal, ruby, and lapis-lazuli glass, and every other such solidity as this. This internal and external portion's own varied kinds of solidity,
以相同故略為一聚總名地界。
on account of sharing the same nature, are gathered together as a single class and given the single overall name earth-element.
問水界云何。答濕性。雖此水界總是濕性。而此濕性差別無邊。謂內外分濕性各異。內分中濕性者。謂淚污涕唾肪膏髓腦涎膽痰癊膿血尿等所有濕性。外分中濕性者。謂江河池沼泉井溝渠四大海等所有濕性。此內外分種種濕性。以相同故略為一聚總名水界。
One asks: what is the water-element? The answer: moisture. Although this water-element is, in every case, moisture, this very moisture's own distinctions are boundless, since moisture differs between the internal and the external portion. As for moisture within the internal portion: this refers to the moisture found in tears, mucus, snivel, spittle, fat, grease, marrow, brain fluid, drool, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, and urine, and every other such moisture as this. As for moisture within the external portion: this refers to the moisture found in rivers, streams, pools, marshes, springs, wells, ditches, canals, and the four great oceans, and every other such moisture as this. This internal and external portion's own varied kinds of moisture, on account of sharing the same nature, are gathered together as a single class and given the single overall name water-element.
問火界云何。答煖性。雖此火界總是煖性。而此煖性差別無邊。謂內外分煖性各異。內分中煖性者。謂身中熱等熱遍熱。由此所飲所食所噉。皆易消熟令身安隱。此若增時便成熱病。外分中煖性者。
One asks: what is the fire-element? The answer: warmth. Although this fire-element is, in every case, warmth, this very warmth's own distinctions are boundless, since warmth differs between the internal and the external portion. As for warmth within the internal portion: this refers to the heat, the pervading heat, and the thoroughly pervading heat found within the body, by which whatever is drunk, eaten, and chewed is easily digested and matured, keeping the body at ease — should this warmth become excessive, it then becomes a feverish illness. As for warmth within the external portion:
謂炬燈燭陶竈爐等火聚炎焰。燒諸城。村山林曠野。及諸藥草日輪未尼天龍宮殿所出光焰。并地獄等諸火煖性。應作是說。內火煖性熱於外火。所以者何。若以飲食置釜鑊中。下然熾火經一日夜。猶不能令形色變易。如在腹中經須臾頃。此內外分種種煖性以相同故。略為一聚總名火界。
this refers to the flames and blaze found within torches, lamps, candles, kilns, hearths, and stoves, burning cities, villages, mountains, forests, and open wilderness, and the light and flame given forth by every medicinal herb, the solar disk, maṇi-jewels, and the palaces of the nāgas and gods, together with the warmth of the fires of hell and the rest. One should say as follows: the internal fire's own warmth is hotter than the external fire's own, for what reason? Were food and drink placed within a cauldron, and a blazing fire kept burning beneath it for a full day and night, this still could not alter the very shape and color of that food, while, within the belly, it takes but a brief moment to do so. This internal and external portion's own varied kinds of warmth, on account of sharing the same nature, are gathered together as a single class and given the single overall name fire-element.
問風界云何。答輕等動性。雖此風界總是動性。而此動性差別無邊。謂內外分動性各異。內分中動性者。謂有上行風有下行風。有住脇風有住腹風。有住背風有如鍼風。有如刀風。有蓽茇羅風有婆呾瑟恥羅風。有婆呾寠拉摩風。有入息風有出息風。有隨身分支節行風所有動性。外分中動性者。謂有四方風。或有塵風。或無塵風。或毘濕縛風。或吠嵐婆風。或小風。或大風。或風輪風等所有動性。此內外分種種動性以相同故。略為一聚總名風界。
One asks: what is the wind-element? The answer: lightness and the like, together with a moving nature. Although this wind-element is, in every case, a moving nature, this very moving nature's own distinctions are boundless, since motion differs between the internal and the external portion. As for motion within the internal portion: this refers to the wind that moves upward, the wind that moves downward, the wind that dwells in the flank, the wind that dwells in the belly, the wind that dwells in the back, the wind resembling a needle, the wind resembling a blade, the wind of the pippala, the wind of the vātaṣṭhira, the wind of the vātagulma, the wind of inhalation, the wind of exhalation, and the moving nature of the wind that travels along every limb and joint of the body. As for motion within the external portion: this refers to the wind of the four directions, or the dust-laden wind, or the dustless wind, the viśvambhara wind, the vairambha wind, the lesser wind, the greater wind, and the wind of the wind-wheel and the like, together with every such moving nature as this. This internal and external portion's own varied kinds of moving nature, on account of sharing the same nature, are gathered together as a single class and given the single overall name wind-element.
The digestive aside — that the body's own internal fire outperforms an external flame tended for a full day — is a small but genuine empirical observation embedded within an otherwise purely definitional exercise, and it matters for more than color: it is evidence that this treatise's authors were willing to let a claim about relative potency be settled by something like ordinary observation, not by definition alone.
11. The Space-Element: Color Adjacent to an Obstruction
Scripture locates the space-element in the eye-socket, the ear-canal, the throat, and every other bodily cavity and pore; the Abhidharma instead defines it more technically as color adjacent to an obstruction — the space between walls, between the leaves of a thicket, of a window or a passageway — since form itself divides into what is easily removed (the sentient) and what is difficult to remove (the insentient, like a wall or a tree), and the space-element's own color lies characteristically near the latter. Both this country's masters and the earlier Abhidharma-masters agree this color exists everywhere, day and night alike, though only some hold that eye-consciousness can actually take it as an object — its clarity obscured, when it is, only by the alternating cover of daylight and darkness rather than by any deficiency in the eye itself.
問空界云何。答如契經說。有眼穴空。有耳穴空。有鼻穴空。有面門空。有咽喉空。有心中空有心邊空。有通飲食處空。有貯飲食處空。有棄飲食處空。有諸支節毛孔等空。是名空界。阿毘達磨作如是說。云何空界。謂隣礙色。礙謂積聚即牆壁等有色。近此名隣礙色。如牆壁間空。叢林間空。樹葉間空。窓牖間空。往來處空。指間等空。是名空界。有作是說此文應言云何空界謂隣難除色。然色有二種。一者易除謂有情數。二者難除謂無情數。此空界色多近非情牆壁樹等。而施設故名隣難除色。舊對法者及此國師。俱說空界處處皆有。謂骨肉筋脈皮血身分。晝夜明闇形顯等處皆有此色。問緣空界色眼識生不。有說緣此眼識不生。謂空界色雖眼識境而此眼識畢竟不生。復有說者。緣空界色眼識亦生。問若爾何故見不明了。答此空界色晝為明所覆。夜為闇所覆。故眼雖見而不明了。
One asks: what is the space-element? The answer: as the scripture states, there exists the space of the eye-socket, the space of the ear-canal, the space of the nostril, the space of the mouth, the space of the throat, the space within the heart and the space beside the heart, the space of the passage through which food and drink pass, the space where food and drink are stored, the space where food and drink are discarded, and the space of every limb, joint, and pore of the body — this is named the space-element. The Abhidharma states as follows: what is the space-element? It refers to color adjacent to an obstruction — an obstruction referring to an accumulation, that is, form such as a wall, and whatever lies near to this is named color adjacent to an obstruction, exactly as the space between walls, the space within a thicket of trees, the space between leaves, the space of a window, the space of a passageway, and the space between fingers — this is named the space-element. There are those who say that this passage ought to state: what is the space-element? It refers to color adjacent to what is difficult to remove. Now, form is of two kinds: first, easily removed, referring to what is sentient; second, difficult to remove, referring to what is insentient — this space-element's own form lies, for the most part, close to what is insentient, such as a wall or a tree, and it is on this basis that it is designated, and it is for this reason that it is named color adjacent to what is difficult to remove. The former Abhidharma-masters, and this country's own masters, both alike say that the space-element exists everywhere, in bone, flesh, sinew, blood-vessel, skin, blood, and every part of the body, and in every place of day and night, brightness and darkness, manifest form and the rest — this very color existing there. One asks: does eye-consciousness arise by taking the space-element's own color as its object, or not? There are those who say that eye-consciousness taking this as object does not arise, since, although the space-element's own color is indeed the domain of the eye, this eye-consciousness ultimately fails to arise there at all. Others, further, say that eye-consciousness taking the space-element's own color as object does indeed arise. One asks: granting this, for what reason does one's own seeing fail to be clear? The answer: this space-element's own color is covered, by day, by brightness, and, by night, by darkness, and it is for this reason that, although the eye does see it, it fails to be clear.
Locating the space-element's own color specifically near what is "difficult to remove" — walls, trees, solid obstruction — rather than the merely "easily removed" sentient body is a quiet reminder that even the most seemingly abstract element in this list, space itself, is defined relationally, by proximity to something else, never as a freestanding nature in its own right.
12. Space Itself Versus the Space-Element
A sharp distinction separates space itself from the space-element that shares its name: space itself is not form, is invisible, non-resistant, undefiled, and unconditioned, while the space-element is form, visible, resistant, contaminated, and conditioned. This forces a reconciliation of several scriptural passages that seem to speak of space itself as though it were tangible — the Buddha touching space itself with his own hand, or a painter asked whether he could paint patterns upon it — each explained as using the term "space itself" loosely, in place of the genuinely touchable, paintable space-element.
問虛空空界有何差別。答虛空非色空界是色。虛空無見空界有見。
One asks: what distinction is there between space itself and the space-element? The answer: space itself is not form; the space-element is form. Space itself is invisible; the space-element is visible.
虛空無對空界有對。虛空無漏空界有漏。虛空無為空界有為。問若此虛空是無為者。契經所說當云何通。如契經說。世尊以手摩捫虛空告苾芻眾。豈佛以手摩捫無為而告弟子。答彼於空界說虛空聲。
Space itself is non-resistant; the space-element is resistant. Space itself is undefiled; the space-element is contaminated. Space itself is unconditioned; the space-element is conditioned. One asks: if this space itself is unconditioned, how is a certain scripture's own statement to be reconciled? As the scripture states, the World-Honored One, with his own hand, touched space itself, and told the assembled monks — could the Buddha possibly touch the unconditioned with his own hand, and thereby tell his own disciples of it? The answer: this speaks, with reference to the space-element, using the term space itself,
That even the Buddha's own recorded gesture of touching space itself has to be reinterpreted as really meaning the space-element is a striking demonstration of how far this treatise is willing to go in overriding a scripture's surface wording once its own prior metaphysical commitments — here, that the truly unconditioned can never be touched by a hand at all — require it.
13. Verses on Space: the Painter, the Beasts, and the Bird's Trackless Flight
A run of further scriptural verses is subjected to the same reinterpretation — beasts returning to forest and marsh, birds returning to open sky, the noble ones returning to nirvāṇa, exactly as space itself bears no trace of any bird's own passage, and the outsiders possess no true śramaṇa exactly as space itself is left untouched by the fool's idle proliferation. Each of these, too, speaks of the space-element while using the words "space itself."
非謂虛空手可摩捫。餘經亦說。佛告苾芻。若有畫師或彼弟子持諸彩色來作是言。我能彩畫虛空。作種種文像有是事不。苾芻白佛無有是事。彼亦於空界說虛空聲又伽他說。
not meaning that space itself can genuinely be touched by the hand at all. A further scripture likewise states: the Buddha told the monks — were there a painter, or his own disciple, to take up every kind of pigment and say: I am capable of painting space itself, creating every kind of pattern and image upon it — could such a thing possibly occur? The monks said to the Buddha: no such thing could possibly occur. This, too, speaks, with reference to the space-element, using the term space itself. A further verse, likewise, states:
獸歸林藪 鳥歸虛空 聖歸涅槃法歸分別彼亦於空界。說虛空聲。復有頌言。
'Beasts return to the forest and the marsh; birds return to the open sky; the noble ones return to nirvāṇa; the dharma returns to discernment.' This, too, speaks, with reference to the space-element, using the term space itself. There is, further, a verse that states:
虛空無鳥跡 外道無沙門愚夫樂戲論 如來則無有彼亦於空界說虛空聲。有餘經說。鳥步虛空跡難可現亦不可尋。彼亦於空界說虛空聲。有處問虛空而答以空界。如品類足作如是言。
'Space itself bears no trace of any bird; the outsiders possess no true śramaṇa; the foolish delight in idle proliferation; the Thus-Come One possesses none of this at all.' This, too, speaks, with reference to the space-element, using the term space itself. A further scripture states: the tracks a bird's own step leaves upon space itself are difficult to make manifest, and impossible to trace out — this, too, speaks, with reference to the space-element, using the term space itself. In a certain place, the question is raised concerning space itself, yet the answer is given with reference to the space-element, as the Prakaraṇapāda states:
The recurring image of a bird's trackless flight through space, used here to describe both the noble one's return to nirvāṇa and the true śramaṇa's absence among outsiders, does double duty: it is at once a description of untraceable freedom and, read alongside the treatise's own technical gloss, a quiet reminder that even this evocative image is, strictly, borrowed language for the space-element rather than a genuine description of the unconditioned itself.
14. How Is Space Itself Known to Exist? A Question Asked but Answered by Its Own Element
The Prakaraṇapāda itself asks "what is space itself?" yet answers with the space-element's own definition, coarse and displayable where space itself is subtle and hard to explain — the coarse being shown precisely in order to reveal the subtle. Vasumitra grounds space itself's own existence in the Buddha's repeated scriptural usage and in direct perception, reasoning that existing things must have somewhere to be received and contained; others locate the proof in the very existence of unobstructed places. The Great Virtuous One dissents sharply, denying that space itself can be known at all, since a knowable matter must be either form or not-form, and space itself is neither — a mere provisional designation of the world's own discrimination. The compilers reject this dissent outright, insisting that space itself genuinely exists, serving, though itself without any function of its own, as the proximate dominant condition through which space-elements condition the great elements, the great elements condition derived matter, and derived matter finally conditions mind and its mental factors — a chain of causation, they warn, that could not otherwise be established at all.
云何虛空謂有虛空無障無礙色於中行周遍增長。問何故問虛空而答以空界。答虛空微細難可顯說。空界相麁易可開示。以麁顯細故作是說。
what is space itself? It refers to that space itself which, unobstructed and unhindered by form, allows movement to pervade and grow freely within it. One asks: for what reason is the question raised concerning space itself, yet the answer given with reference to the space-element? The answer: space itself is subtle and fine, difficult to make manifest and to explain; the space-element's own characteristic is coarse, and easily displayed and revealed — and it is by displaying the coarse that the subtle is thereby revealed, and it is for this reason that this is spoken of in this way.
問以何緣故知有虛空。尊者世友作如是說。以佛說故知有虛空。謂契經中。佛處處說虛空虛空。故知實有。問為但信教知有虛空。為此虛空亦現量得。答亦現量得。若無虛空一切有物應無容處。既有容受諸有物處知有虛空。復作是說。以有往來聚集處故知有虛空。
One asks: by what cause and condition is it known that space itself exists? The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: it is by the Buddha's own statement that it is known that space itself exists — that is, the Buddha, within scripture, speaks everywhere of space itself, space itself, and it is thereby known that it genuinely exists. One asks: is it merely by trusting the teaching that space itself is known to exist, or is this space itself likewise apprehended by direct perception? The answer: it is likewise apprehended by direct perception — were there no space itself, every existing thing whatsoever would have no place to be contained at all, and, since there does indeed exist a place capable of receiving and containing every existing thing, it is thereby known that space itself exists. Others, further, say: it is by the very existence of a place where things come and go, and where things gather together, that space itself is known to exist —
若無彼因彼亦不有。言彼因者即是虛空。虛空是彼容受因故。復作是說。容有礙物知有虛空。若無虛空彼無容處。復作是說若無虛空應一切處皆有障礙。既現見有無障礙處故。知虛空決定實有。無障礙相是虛空故。大德說曰。虛空不可知非所知事故。所知事者色非色性虛空與彼俱不相應。所知事者謂此彼性虛空與彼俱不相應。此虛空名。但是世間分別假立。評曰應作是說。實有虛空非彼不知即謂非有由前教理實有虛空。
were that very cause absent, that place, too, would not exist at all; and this cause here refers precisely to space itself, since space itself is the very cause by which such things are received and contained. Others, further, say: it is by the existence of a resistant thing being capable of being received and contained that space itself is known to exist — were there no space itself, that thing would have no place to be contained at all. Others, further, say: were there no space itself, every place whatsoever would be obstructed — yet, since it is presently observed that there do exist unobstructed places, it is thereby known that space itself is certainly, genuinely existent, the very characteristic of being unobstructed being precisely space itself. The Great Virtuous One says: space itself cannot be known, since it is not a matter capable of being known at all — a matter capable of being known is either the nature of form or the nature of what is not form, and space itself is associated with neither of these; a matter capable of being known refers to the nature of this or of that, and space itself is associated with neither of these — this very term space itself is merely a provisional designation established through the world's own discrimination. The compilers say: one should say as follows — space itself genuinely, truly exists; one ought not, merely because it cannot be fully known by that one master, thereby say that it does not exist at all — by the scriptural authority and by the reasoning already stated above, space itself genuinely, truly exists.
問若爾虛空有何作用。答虛空無為無有作用。然此能與種種空界作近增上緣。彼種種空界能與種種大種作近增上緣。彼種種大種能與有對造色等作近增上緣。彼有對造色能與心心所法作近增上緣。若無虛空。如是展轉因果次第皆不成立。勿有此失。是故虛空體相實有不應撥無。
One asks: granting this, what function does space itself perform? The answer: space itself is unconditioned, and possesses no function of its own at all — yet it is capable of serving as the proximate dominant condition for every kind of space-element; those various space-elements are capable of serving as the proximate dominant condition for every kind of great element; those various great elements are capable of serving as the proximate dominant condition for resistant derived matter and the rest; and that resistant derived matter is capable of serving as the proximate dominant condition for mind and its mental factors. Were there no space itself, this very sequence of cause and effect, turning one upon another, could not be established at all — and, lest such a fault as this be incurred, space itself's own substance and characteristic genuinely, truly exist, and ought not to be denied outright.
The compilers' closing argument — that without space itself the whole downward chain of conditioning from element to element to mind could never be established — reveals their real stake in this debate: they are not merely defending an isolated metaphysical curiosity, but a keystone that the rest of their causal architecture, several elements deep, is quietly resting upon.
15. The Consciousness-Element, and Why the Undefiled Is Excluded
The consciousness-element comprises the five sense-consciousness-bodies together with contaminated mind-consciousness alone — undefiled mind-consciousness is deliberately excluded, since the six elements nourish, sustain, and uphold every state of existence while the undefiled diminishes and dissolves it; the six elements sustain the ongoing cycle of birth, aging, sickness, and death, while the undefiled runs counter to it; and the six elements serve as the very matter of self-view, craving, and the latent tendencies, falling within the truths of suffering and its accumulation, while the undefiled again stands opposed. Vasumitra, other masters, the Great Virtuous One, and the Venerable Pārśva each add their own reason in turn — that the six elements alone arise from the contaminants, generate them, condition self-grasping, ground a sentient being and a ripened karmic result, condition entry into the womb, have existed since beginningless time, form a portion of one's own continuum-body, or ground birth-and-death itself.
問識界云何。答五識身及有漏意識。問何故無漏識不立識界耶。答與識界相不相應故。若法能長養諸有。攝益諸有。任持諸有者。立六界中。無漏意識。能損減諸有。散壞諸有。破滅諸有。是故不立在六界中。復次若法能令諸有相續生老病死流轉不絕者立六界中。
One asks: what is the consciousness-element? The answer: the five sense-consciousness-bodies, together with contaminated mind-consciousness. One asks: for what reason is undefiled consciousness not established as the consciousness-element? The answer: because it does not accord with the very characteristic of the consciousness-element — that is, whatever dharma is capable of nourishing and growing every state of existence, of benefiting and sustaining every state of existence, and of upholding every state of existence, is established among these six elements; undefiled mind-consciousness is capable of diminishing every state of existence, of scattering and destroying every state of existence, and of breaking apart and dissolving every state of existence, and it is for this reason that it is not established among these six elements. Further, whatever dharma causes every state of existence to sustain its own continuity of birth, old age, sickness, and death, circulating without cease, is established among these six elements;
無漏意識與此相違。是故不立在六界中。復次若法是趣苦集行亦是趣有世間生老病死集行者立六界中。無漏意識與此相違。是故不立在六界中。復次若法是有身見事。顛倒事愛事。隨眠事與貪瞋癡為安足處。有垢有毒有穢有刺。有過有濁墮在諸有苦集諦攝者立六界中。無漏意識與此相違。是故不立在六界中。尊者世友作是問言。
undefiled mind-consciousness is the opposite of this, and it is for this reason that it is not established among these six elements. Further, whatever dharma proceeds toward the very course of suffering's own accumulation, and likewise proceeds toward the very course of existence's own worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death, and accumulation, is established among these six elements; undefiled mind-consciousness is the opposite of this, and it is for this reason that it is not established among these six elements. Further, whatever dharma is the very matter of the view of self, the matter of distortion, the matter of craving, the matter of a latent tendency, serving as the very resting-place for craving, hatred, and delusion, possessing defilement, possessing poison, possessing filth, possessing thorns, possessing fault, possessing turbidity, falling within the truth of suffering and of its accumulation across every state of existence, is established among these six elements; undefiled mind-consciousness is the opposite of this, and it is for this reason that it is not established among these six elements. The Venerable Vasumitra raises the very question himself: for what reason do these six elements not gather in undefiled mind-consciousness?
此六界中何故不攝無漏意識。即自答言。如是六界從諸漏生。無漏意識不從漏生。復作是說。如是六界能生諸漏。無漏意識不生諸漏。復作是說。如是六界是我執緣。無漏意識非我執緣。復作是說。如是六界是有情依。無漏意識非有情依。復作是說。如是六界是異熟依。無漏意識非異熟依。復作是說如是六界是入胎緣。無漏意識非入胎緣。復作是說。如是六界無始來有。無漏意識非無始有。大德說曰。如是六界是自體分。無漏意識非。自體分。脇尊者言。如是六界是生死依。無漏意識非生死依。由如是等種種因緣無漏意識不立識界。
And answers it himself, saying: these six elements arise from the contaminants; undefiled mind-consciousness does not arise from the contaminants. Others, further, say: these six elements are capable of generating the contaminants; undefiled mind-consciousness does not generate the contaminants. Others, further, say: these six elements serve as the very condition for self-grasping; undefiled mind-consciousness does not serve as the condition for self-grasping. Others, further, say: these six elements are the very basis of a sentient being; undefiled mind-consciousness is not the basis of a sentient being. Others, further, say: these six elements are the very basis of a ripened karmic result; undefiled mind-consciousness is not the basis of a ripened karmic result. Others, further, say: these six elements serve as the very condition for entering the womb; undefiled mind-consciousness does not serve as the condition for entering the womb. Others, further, say: these six elements have existed since beginningless time; undefiled mind-consciousness has not existed since beginningless time. The Great Virtuous One says: these six elements are a portion of one's own continuum-body; undefiled mind-consciousness is not a portion of one's own continuum-body. The Venerable Pārśva says: these six elements are the very basis of birth-and-death; undefiled mind-consciousness is not the basis of birth-and-death. It is owing to causes and conditions such as these, of every kind, that undefiled mind-consciousness is not established as the consciousness-element.
That so many independent masters each supply their own distinct reason for excluding undefiled mind-consciousness from the consciousness-element, rather than the treatise settling on one, is characteristic of how this literature treats a conclusion it regards as secure: the abundance of converging arguments matters more than adjudicating which single one is decisive.
16. Aggregate, Grasping-Aggregate, and Element: A Threefold Distinction
The three overlapping categories are finally distinguished together: an aggregate is established with reference to every conditioned dharma, a grasping-aggregate with reference to every contaminated dharma, and an element with reference to every dharma belonging to a sentient being's own class; an aggregate admits both circulation and return to cessation, a grasping-aggregate only circulation, and an element the specific functions of conception and entry into the womb.
問蘊取蘊界有何差別。答名即差別。謂名為蘊名為取蘊名為界故。
One asks: what distinction is there among the aggregate, the grasping-aggregate, and the element? The answer: they differ in name — that one is named an aggregate, this one is named a grasping-aggregate, and that other one is named an element.
復次於有為法施設蘊於有漏法施設取蘊。於有情數法施設界。復次蘊有流轉還滅作用。取蘊唯有流轉作用。界有結生入胎作用如是名為蘊取蘊界三種差別。
Further, an aggregate is established with reference to every conditioned dharma; a grasping-aggregate is established with reference to every contaminated dharma; an element is established with reference to every dharma belonging to a sentient being's own class. Further, an aggregate possesses the function of circulation and of return to cessation; a grasping-aggregate possesses only the function of circulation; an element possesses the function of conception and of entry into the womb. Such, then, is named the threefold distinction among the aggregate, the grasping-aggregate, and the element.
Tracing this final distinction back to function rather than mere extension — what each category actually does, circulating, returning to cessation, or grounding conception — is the treatise's preferred way of closing out a taxonomy: three categories that overlap heavily in their membership are shown to differ, in the end, not by what they contain but by what work each one is doing.
17. Form and Formless Dharmas: Nine Definitions of the Characteristic of Form
A new pair of categories, form and formless dharma, is composed to put a stop to the notion of a person and to display wisdom's own superiority — form gathering ten sense-fields plus a portion of the dharma-field, the formless gathering the mind-field plus the remaining portion. Since scripture sometimes uses the word "form" even for what is not, in substance, form at all — as when liberation is said to "transcend every dharma possessing form," or the body-witness is said to abide in a formless attainment — the treatise insists that true form requires substance and characteristic to mutually possess one another, being either the four great elements themselves or what is derived from them, capable of being planted and grown. Vasumitra and others then multiply candidate characteristics of form still further — gradual accumulation, gradual dissolution, definite shape, definite location, definite size, obstruction, hostile harm, injury, augmentation — while a searching objection asks how past and future atoms, or unmanifest form, possessing no change or obstruction now, can still count as form at all; the answer is that they possessed, will possess, or indirectly depend upon what does possess change and obstruction, exactly as a tree's shadow moves when the tree itself moves.
有二法。謂有色無色法。問何故作此論。答為欲遮遣補特伽羅。及為顯示智殊勝故。為欲遮遣補特伽羅者。謂顯唯有有色無色法畢竟無實補特伽羅故。及為顯示智殊勝者。謂有聰慧殊勝智者。由此二法通達一切。此二遍攝一切法故。由此二緣故作斯論。問有色法云何。答謂十處一處少分。十處者。謂眼耳鼻舌身色聲香味觸處。一處少分者。謂法處少分。問無色法云何。答謂一處一處少分。一處者謂意處。一處少分者。謂法處少分。問此中何等名有色法無色法耶。答若法有色名體是色者名有色法。若法有非色名體非色者名無色法。或有法雖有色名而體非色。如契經說寂靜解脫超有色法。至無色法。應知此中有色法者即有色定。又契經說。身證色定具足而住。又如有言。我今正受如是色受。又如佛說。我以如是色經典句付屬汝等應正受持。如是等處雖有色名而體非色。若有色名體是色者名有色法。或色體有色用。或色用有色體。或體與相互相有故立有色名。復次若法體是四大種。或是四大種所造者名有色法。若法體非四大種。或非四大種所造者名無色法。復次若法大種為因及體是所造色者名有色法。若法非大種為因及體非所造色者名無色法。
There exist, further, two kinds of dharma: dharmas possessing form, and dharmas without form. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to the notion of a person, and in order to display the superiority of wisdom. As for putting a stop to the notion of a person: this displays that there exists only form and formless dharma, and no genuinely real person whatsoever. As for displaying the superiority of wisdom: this refers to the fact that there exists a wisdom of surpassing brilliance and superiority, by which one penetrates everything whatsoever, since these two categories comprehensively gather within them every dharma there is. It is owing to these two reasons that this treatise is composed. One asks: what is a dharma possessing form? The answer: this refers to ten sense-fields, together with a portion of one further sense-field. As for the ten sense-fields: this refers to the eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-sense-fields, and the color-, sound-, smell-, taste-, and touch-sense-fields. As for the portion of one further sense-field: this refers to a portion of the dharma-sense-field. One asks: what is a formless dharma? The answer: this refers to one sense-field, together with a portion of one further sense-field. As for the one sense-field: this refers to the mind-sense-field. As for the portion of one further sense-field: this refers to a portion of the dharma-sense-field. One asks: what, here, is named a dharma possessing form, and what a formless dharma? The answer: whatever dharma possesses the very name of form, and whose own substance is form, is named a dharma possessing form; whatever dharma possesses a name other than form, and whose own substance is not form, is named a formless dharma. There is, further, a dharma that, although it bears the very name of form, does not, in its own substance, consist of form at all, as the scripture states: tranquil liberation transcends every dharma possessing form, and arrives at formless dharma — it should be understood that, here, a dharma possessing form refers precisely to a formless attainment. A further scripture states: the body-witness is complete in, and abides within, the formless attainment. And, further, as it is said: I am now properly undergoing just such a formal sensation. And, further, as the Buddha states: I entrust to you these scriptural passages of form for you to properly receive and uphold. In places such as these, although the very name of form appears, the substance is not form at all. Whatever dharma bears the very name of form, and whose own substance is form, is named a dharma possessing form — that is, form's own substance possesses form's own function, or form's own function possesses form's own substance, or substance and characteristic mutually possess one another, and it is on this basis that the name of form is established. Further, whatever dharma's own substance is the four great elements, or is derived from the four great elements, is named a dharma possessing form; whatever dharma's own substance is not the four great elements, and is not derived from the four great elements, is named a formless dharma. Further, whatever dharma has the four great elements as its own cause, and whose own substance is derived matter, is named a dharma possessing form; whatever dharma does not have the four great elements as its own cause, and whose own substance is not derived matter, is named a formless dharma.
復次若法可種植可增長者名有色法。若法不可種植及不可增長者名無色法。尊者世友作如是說。有色相者名有色法。何等名有色相。
Further, whatever dharma is capable of being planted and of growing is named a dharma possessing form; whatever dharma is incapable of being planted and of growing is named a formless dharma. The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: whatever possesses the characteristic of form is named a dharma possessing form. What, then, is named the characteristic of form?
謂有漸次積集相者名有色相。復作是說。若有漸次散壞相者名有色相。復作是說。若有形質可取相者名有色相。復作是說。若有方所可取相者名有色相。復作是說。若有大小所取相者名有色相。復作是說。若有障礙可取相者名有色相。復作是說。若有怨害可取相者名有色相。復作是說。若有損害可取相者名有色相。復作是說。若增益可取相者名有色相。復次若有三種色相可得名有色相。謂或有色有見有對。或復有色無見有對。或復有色無見無對。復作是說。
Whatever possesses the characteristic of gradual accumulation is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses the characteristic of gradual dissolution is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a definite shape or mass, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a definite location, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a definite largeness or smallness, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses an obstructive quality, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a quality of hostile harm, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a quality of injury and damage, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses a quality of augmentation, apprehensible as a characteristic, is named the characteristic of form. Further, whatever admits of three kinds of characteristic of form is named a characteristic of form — that is, some form is visible and resistant; some form, further, is invisible and resistant; some form, further, is invisible and non-resistant. Others, further, say:
若有牽來引去相者名有色相。復作是說。有變礙相名有色相。問若有變礙相名有色相者。過去未來極微無表既無變礙應無色相。若無色相體應非色。答彼亦是色得色相故。謂過去色雖今無變礙而曾有變礙。未來色雖今無變礙而當有變礙極微一一雖無變礙而多積集即有變礙。無表自體雖無變礙而彼所依有變礙故亦名變礙。所依者何謂四大種。所依有變礙故無表亦可說有變礙。如樹動時影亦隨動。
whatever possesses the characteristic of being dragged toward or pulled away from is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses the characteristic of change and obstruction is named the characteristic of form. One asks: if whatever possesses the characteristic of change and obstruction is named the characteristic of form, then past and future atoms, and unmanifest form, possessing no change and no obstruction at all, ought then to possess no characteristic of form at all — and, possessing no characteristic of form, their own substance ought then not to be form at all. The answer: these, too, are indeed form, since they possess the characteristic of form — that is, past form, although it presently possesses no change or obstruction, once did possess change and obstruction; future form, although it presently possesses no change or obstruction, will come to possess change and obstruction; atoms, though each, taken individually, possesses no change or obstruction, when accumulated together in great multitude, do indeed possess change and obstruction. Unmanifest form's own substance, though it possesses no change or obstruction in itself, nevertheless has, as its own support, something that does possess change and obstruction, and it is for this reason that it, too, is spoken of as possessing change and obstruction — and, as for this support, it refers precisely to the four great elements, which, possessing change and obstruction, allow unmanifest form likewise to be spoken of as possessing change and obstruction, exactly as, when a tree moves, its own shadow moves along with it.
復作是說。若有容受障礙相者名有色相。復作是說。若有大種為因相者名有色相。復作是說。無一切色同一色相。所以者何。眼處色相異乃至法處所攝色相異。大德說曰。若有能壞有對色相是有色相。與前所說色相相違名無色相。若法有此無色相者。名無色法。
Others, further, say: whatever possesses the characteristic of admitting containment and obstruction is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: whatever possesses the characteristic of having the great elements as its own cause is named the characteristic of form. Others, further, say: no form whatsoever shares one single, identical characteristic of form at all, for what reason? Because the eye-field's own characteristic of color differs, and so on, up through, the dharma-field's own gathered color likewise differs in its own characteristic. The Great Virtuous One says: whatever possesses the capacity to destroy a resistant form's own characteristic is a characteristic of form; whatever is the opposite of the characteristics of form stated above is named a characteristic of the formless. Whatever dharma possesses this characteristic of the formless is named a formless dharma.
問墮法處色。何不攝在十色處中。答若色可以剎那極微而分析者立十色處。墮法處色雖有剎那可分析義。而無極微可分析義故不攝在十色處中。復次若色可作五識所依及所緣者立十色處。墮法處色不與五識作所依緣故不攝在十色處中。復次若色有障礙可立十色處。
One asks: form that is gathered within the dharma-field — for what reason is it not gathered within the ten form-sense-fields? The answer: whatever form can be analyzed by way of the thought-moment or the atom is established as one of the ten form-sense-fields; the form gathered within the dharma-field, although it does indeed admit of the sense of being analyzed by way of the thought-moment, does not admit of the sense of being analyzed by way of the atom, and it is for this reason that it is not gathered within the ten form-sense-fields. Further, whatever form is capable of serving as the basis and the object of the five sense-consciousnesses is established as one of the ten form-sense-fields; the form gathered within the dharma-field does not serve as the basis or object of the five sense-consciousnesses, and it is for this reason that it is not gathered within the ten form-sense-fields. Further, whatever form possesses an obstructive quality may be established as one of the ten form-sense-fields;
墮法處色既無障礙故不攝在十色處中。
the form gathered within the dharma-field, possessing no obstructive quality at all, is not gathered within the ten form-sense-fields for precisely this reason.
The tree-and-shadow image, explaining how unmanifest form can count as form despite lacking change or obstruction in itself, is doing exactly the same explanatory work the raft-and-river image did for liberation earlier in this nyāsa: a thing's own defining characteristic can be borrowed, at one remove, from whatever it depends on, without that characteristic ever needing to belong to the thing directly.
18. Desire Realm or Form Realm — Which Possesses More Form?
Measured by location, the desire realm possesses more form, since its own form gathers two whole sense-fields plus a portion of nine others, against the form realm's mere portion of nine; but measured by substance, the form realm possesses more form, since its own bodies and dwelling-places are vastly larger — the Prajñaptiśāstra offering as evidence that the distance from this world up to the Heaven of Brahmā's Own Multitude equals the distance from there up to the Heaven of Brahmā's Own Ministers, and so on in matched intervals all the way to the Heaven of the Ultimate Limit of Form.
問為欲界色多色界色多耶。答若依處說欲界色多色界色少。所以者何。以欲界色攝二處全九處少分。色界色唯攝九處少分。若依體說色界色多欲界色少。所以者何。以色界身處俱廣大故。謂色界身形量廣大過於欲界。色界處所亦復如是。施設論說。如從此處至梵眾天。從梵眾天至梵輔天。其量亦爾。廣說乃至。如從此處至善見天。從善見天。至色究竟其量亦爾。故色界色多於欲界。
One asks: does the desire realm possess more form, or does the form realm possess more form? The answer: if one speaks with reference to location, the desire realm possesses more form, the form realm possesses less form, for what reason? Because the desire realm's own form gathers in two whole sense-fields, together with a portion of nine further sense-fields, while the form realm's own form gathers in only a portion of nine sense-fields. If one speaks with reference to substance, the form realm possesses more form, the desire realm possesses less form, for what reason? Because the form realm's own body and its own place of dwelling are both, alike, vast and expansive — that is, the form realm's own bodily size and shape are vast, surpassing the desire realm's own, and the form realm's own places, too, are likewise vast. The Prajñaptiśāstra states: exactly as the distance from this present place up to the Heaven of Brahmā's Own Multitude, and, further, from the Heaven of Brahmā's Own Multitude up to the Heaven of Brahmā's Own Ministers, is of the very same measure, and so on, at full length, up through, exactly as the distance from this present place up to the Heaven of Fair Vision, and, further, from the Heaven of Fair Vision up to the Heaven of the Ultimate Limit of Form, is likewise of the very same measure — and it is for this reason that the form realm's own form surpasses that of the desire realm.
Answering "which realm has more form" with two contradictory-sounding answers, location versus substance, rather than picking one, is not an evasion but the treatise's own preferred way of showing that "more form" was never a single well-defined question to begin with — it splits cleanly into two once pressed, and each half deserves its own honest answer.
19. Visible and Invisible Dharmas
A further pair, visible and invisible dharma, is composed for the same twin purposes as before, plus a third: refuting the Venerable Ghoṣa's claim that every dharma whatsoever is visible, being the very domain of wisdom's own eye. Only the color-sense-field itself counts as visible; every remaining sense-field, eleven in all, is invisible. Vasumitra defines the visible as whatever can be manifested and pointed to as being here or there; the Great Virtuous One as whatever is illuminated by, functions for, and is the domain of the eye; the Venerable Pārśva as whatever possesses a clear, evident reflected image capable of being seen.
復有二法。謂有見無見法。問何故作此論。答為欲遮遣補特伽羅。
There exist, further, two kinds of dharma: visible dharmas, and invisible dharmas. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to put a stop to the notion of a person, and in order to display the superiority of wisdom.
及為顯示智殊勝故。為欲遮遣補特伽羅者。謂顯唯有見無見法畢竟無實補特伽羅故。及為顯示智殊勝者。謂有聰慧殊勝智者。由此二法通達一切。此二遍攝一切法故。復次為止他宗顯正理故。謂或有執一切法皆是有見。如尊者妙音彼作是說。一切法皆是有見慧眼境故。為止彼意顯一切法。或是有見或是無見。由此三緣故作斯論。
As for putting a stop to the notion of a person: this displays that there exists only the visible and the invisible dharma, and no genuinely real person whatsoever. As for displaying the superiority of wisdom: this refers to the fact that there exists a wisdom of surpassing brilliance and superiority, by which one penetrates everything whatsoever, since these two categories comprehensively gather within them every dharma there is. Further, this is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that every dharma whatsoever is visible, as the Venerable Ghoṣa does, who says as follows: every dharma whatsoever is visible, being the very domain of the eye of wisdom — and it is in order to put a stop to this very intent that this treatise displays that every dharma whatsoever is either visible or invisible. It is owing to these three reasons that this treatise is composed.
問有見法云何答。一處謂色處。問無見法云何。答十一處。謂餘十一處。問有見無見是何義耶。尊者世友作如是說。能現所現及可示現在此在彼是有見義。與此相違是無見義。大德說曰。是眼所照。
One asks: what is a visible dharma? The answer: one sense-field, namely, the color-sense-field. One asks: what is an invisible dharma? The answer: eleven sense-fields, namely, every remaining sense-field. One asks: what is the meaning of visible and invisible? The Venerable Vasumitra says as follows: whatever is capable of being manifest, of manifesting itself, and of being pointed to as being here or there, is the meaning of visible; whatever is the opposite of this is the meaning of invisible. The Great Virtuous One says: whatever is illuminated by the eye, functions for the eye, and is the very domain of the eye, is the meaning of visible; whatever is the opposite of this is the meaning of invisible.
Refuting Ghoṣa's claim that every dharma is visible "as the domain of wisdom's own eye" turns on a deliberate equivocation Ghoṣa is accused of exploiting: he is trading on a metaphorical sense of "seeing" (wisdom's insight) to smuggle in a conclusion that only holds for the literal sense the treatise actually cares about here — and the three masters' careful, literal definitions of visibility that follow are pointedly aimed at closing off exactly that move.
20. The Twenty Kinds of Visible Form, and the Tetralemma of Hue and Shape
The single visible sense-field divides into twenty kinds — long, short, square, round, level, uneven, high, low, blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, darkness, cloud, smoke, dust, and mist — some adding space itself as a further, twenty-first, hue-based color. A tetralemma then sorts these by whether they possess hue, shape, both, or neither: eight (blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, darkness) possess hue without shape; bodily expressive form possesses shape without hue; twelve possess both; and the space-element's own color possesses neither.
是眼所行。是眼境界是有見義。與此相違是無見義。脇尊者言。若有影像明了可見是有見義。與此相違是無見義。問何故有色十一處中唯一色處說名有見。答唯一色處麁顯易了。廣說如前。十一色內唯一色處立色處名。此有見法有二十種。謂長短方圓正不正高下。
The Venerable Pārśva says: whatever possesses a clear and evident reflected image, capable of being seen, is the meaning of visible; whatever is the opposite of this is the meaning of invisible. One asks: for what reason, among the eleven form-sense-fields, does only this one, the color-sense-field, alone bear the name visible? The answer: only this one sense-field is coarse, evident, and easy to understand, exactly as stated at length before, and it is among these eleven form-sense-fields that only this one alone establishes the name color-sense-field. This visible dharma is of twenty kinds, namely, long, short, square, round, level, uneven, high, low,
青黃赤白影光明暗雲烟塵霧。復有說者。此有二十一。謂前二十種加空一顯色。問此二十色內。幾有顯無形幾有顯有形。答二十色內八有顯無形。謂青黃赤白影光明暗。餘十二色有顯有形。有說此中應作四句。或有色有顯無形。謂青黃赤白影光明暗。此八種色有顯可知無形可知故。或有色有形無顯。謂身表色此有形可知無顯可知故。或有色有顯有形。謂長短方圓正不正高下雲烟塵霧。此十二種有顯有形而可知故。或有色無顯無形。謂除前相。即空界色。問水鏡等中所有影像為是實有非實有耶。譬喻者說此非實有。所以者何。面不入鏡鏡不在面。如何鏡上有面像生。阿毘達磨諸論師言。
blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, darkness, cloud, smoke, dust, and mist. There are, further, those who say that this is of twenty-one kinds, namely, the twenty kinds stated before, together with space as a further, single hue-based color. One asks: among these twenty colors, how many possess hue but no shape, and how many possess both hue and shape? The answer: among these twenty colors, eight possess hue but no shape, namely, blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness; the remaining twelve colors possess both hue and shape. There are those who say that this ought to be cast as a tetralemma: there is a color that possesses hue but no shape, namely, blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness, these eight kinds of color possessing a knowable hue, but no knowable shape; there is a color that possesses shape but no hue, namely, bodily expressive form, this possessing a knowable shape, but no knowable hue; there is a color that possesses both hue and shape, namely, long, short, square, round, level, uneven, high, low, cloud, smoke, dust, and mist, these twelve kinds possessing both a knowable hue and a knowable shape; there is a color that possesses neither hue nor shape, namely, whatever is excluded from the foregoing cases, that is, the space-element's own color. One asks: is whatever reflected image exists within water, a mirror, and the like genuinely real, or not genuinely real? The Dārṣṭāntikas say: this is not genuinely real, for what reason? Because the face does not enter the mirror, and the mirror is not present within the face — how, then, could an image of the face arise upon the mirror at all? The Abhidharma masters say:
Slotting bodily expressive form into the otherwise unoccupied "shape without hue" corner of this fourfold grid is a small classificatory detail worth noticing, since it makes explicit something easy to overlook: a person's visible bearing and gesture counts, in this scheme, as pure shape, entirely without any color-quality of its own, however naturally we might otherwise think of a posture as also somehow colored.
21. Are Mirror-Reflections and Echoes Genuinely Real?
A closing epistemological puzzle: the Dārṣṭāntikas deny that a mirror's reflected image or a valley's echo can be genuinely real, since the face never enters the mirror nor the mirror the face, and a sound perishes the very instant it arises, unable to travel anywhere to produce an echo at all. The Abhidharma masters affirm both are genuinely real precisely because each is actually seen or heard, taken as object by eye- or ear-consciousness, and gathered within its own sense-field — the causes and conditions that generate a color or a sound admitting many distinct principles, not just one, exactly as water is genuinely generated by moonlight and a moon-loving gem, or fire by a sun-loving gem or by a fire-drill and human effort, without any object literally entering into another.
此是實有是眼所見眼識所緣色處攝故。問面不入鏡鏡不在面。云何實有。答生色因緣有多種理非一種理故彼非難。如緣月光月愛珠器。得有水生非不實有。彼所生水有水用故。如緣日光及日愛珠牛糞末等。而有火生非不實有。彼所生火有火用故。如緣鑽燧及人功力。而有火生非不實有。彼所生火有火用故。如是緣水鏡等及人面等有影像生非不實有。所生影像能為所緣生覺念故。問世間所聞諸谷響等。為是實有非實有耶。譬喻者說。此非實有。所以者何。一切音聲剎那性故。於此處生即此處滅。剎那頃生自然即滅。如何能至谷等生響。阿毘達磨諸論師言。此是實有。是耳所聞耳識所緣聲處攝故。問聲剎那生即此處滅。如何能至谷等生響。答生聲因緣非一種理有多種理故彼非難。如緣脣齒舌齶喉等相擊出聲。彼所出聲非不實有。生耳識故。如是緣聲及緣谷等而有響生非不實有。能為所緣生覺念故。
this is genuinely real, since it is seen by the eye and taken as object by eye-consciousness, being gathered within the color-sense-field. One asks: the face does not enter the mirror, and the mirror is not present within the face — how, then, could this genuinely be real at all? The answer: the causes and conditions that generate a color admit of many distinct principles, not merely one single principle, and it is for this reason that this raises no genuine objection at all — exactly as, relying upon moonlight and a moon-loving gem, water is genuinely generated, and is not unreal, since the water thereby generated possesses the very function of water; exactly as, relying upon sunlight, a sun-loving gem, and cow-dung powder, fire is genuinely generated, and is not unreal, since the fire thereby generated possesses the very function of fire; exactly as, relying upon a fire-drill and human effort, fire is genuinely generated, and is not unreal, since the fire thereby generated possesses the very function of fire — so too, relying upon water, a mirror, and the like, together with a human face and the like, a reflected image is genuinely generated, and is not unreal, since the reflected image thereby generated is capable of serving as an object and giving rise to genuine cognition and thought regarding it. One asks: are the echoes of a valley and the like, heard throughout the world, genuinely real, or not genuinely real? The Dārṣṭāntikas say: this is not genuinely real, for what reason? Because every sound whatsoever possesses a merely momentary nature, ceasing in the very place it arises, arising for a single thought-moment and thereupon, of its own accord, ceasing at once — how, then, could it possibly travel to a valley and there generate an echo? The Abhidharma masters say: this is genuinely real, since it is heard by the ear and taken as object by ear-consciousness, being gathered within the sound-sense-field. One asks: a sound arises for a single moment and ceases in that very same place — how, then, could it possibly travel to a valley and there generate an echo? The answer: the causes and conditions that generate a sound admit of many distinct principles, not merely one single principle, and it is for this reason that this raises no genuine objection at all — exactly as, relying upon the lips, teeth, tongue, palate, throat, and the like striking against one another, a sound is produced, and the sound thereby produced is not unreal, since it gives rise to ear-consciousness — so too, relying upon a sound, together with a valley and the like, an echo is generated, and is not unreal, since it too is capable of serving as an object and giving rise to genuine cognition and thought regarding it.
The chain of parallel examples closing this fascicle — reflected images, echoes, water conjured from moonlight, fire struck from a drill — all make the identical point from different angles: reality, for the Abhidharma masters, never requires one thing to literally enter or merge with another, only that the right causes and conditions converge to generate something capable of being genuinely seen, heard, and cognized in its own right.
Fascicle 75 Complete
This closes fascicle 75 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 75 opened the third and fourth matters of this nyāsa's forty-two chapters in earnest, treating the five grasping-aggregates — their definitions, the puzzle of fear's own nature, and eleven reasons for the name "grasping-aggregate" itself — before turning to the six elements: earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, including a sustained inquiry into space itself versus the space-element, how space itself can be known to exist at all, and why the consciousness-element excludes the undefiled. The fascicle closed with form and formless dharma, visible and invisible dharma, and a final epistemological puzzle over whether mirror-reflections and echoes are genuinely real. Fascicle 76 continues the same nyāsa.