Visuddhimagga XIV-45

Yasmā panetaṃ ubhayampi natthi,

可是这两种都不可能发生，

Ñ(XIV,45): 'But since neither of these is a fact,

tasmā pahāyetaṃ etesaṃ nissayabhūtānaṃ visesakappanaṃ,

所以你必须放弃（眼等的差别是）此等所依的大种的差别的说法。

Ñ: you should therefore give up conjecturing the difference to be in the supporting primary elements.

‘‘yathā avisesepi ekakalāpe bhūtānaṃ rūparasādayo aññamaññaṃ visadisā honti, evaṃ cakkhupasādādayo avijjamānepi aññasmiṃ visesakāraṇe’’ti gahetabbametaṃ.

例如于一色聚的大种虽无差别，但大种的色与味等则互相各别，如是差别，虽无别的原因，但说眼净等（相异）」。

Ñ: Just as the natures of visible objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference exists'. This is how it should be taken.

Kiṃ pana taṃ yaṃ aññamaññassa asādhāraṇaṃ?

然而那眼耳等怎么会互相的不同？

Ñ: But what is it that is not common to them all?

Kammameva nesaṃ visesakāraṇaṃ.

只有业是它们的差别的原因。

Ñ: It is the kamma itself that is the reason for their difference.

Tasmā kammavisesato etesaṃ viseso, na bhūtavisesato.

因为业的差别，所以有此等（眼、耳等）的差别，并非因大种的差别之故。

Ñ: Therefore their difference is due to difference of kamma, not to difference of primary elements;

Bhūtavisese hi sati pasādova na uppajjati. Samānānañhi pasādo, na visamānānanti porāṇā.

即如古人说：「如果大种有差别时，则无净（根）生起，因为净（根的大种）是相等而非相异」。

Ñ: for if there were difference of primary elements, sensitivity itself would not arise, since the Ancients have said: 'Sensitivity is of those that are equal, not of those that are unequal'.

Visuddhimagga XIV-44

Athāpi vadeyyuṃ ‘‘yathā tesu tesu sambhāresu tassa tassa bhūtassa adhikatāya pathavīādīnaṃ sandhāraṇādīni kiccāni icchatha,

此时他们又说：「正如你们所主张的地等有支持等的功能，因为是在各种元素（物质形成的色聚）中的某大种的成分较多的缘故，

Ñ(XIV,44): Then they may say: 'Just as you assume, from excess of some primary element in such and such material things, the [respective] functions of upholding (sandhāraṇa), etc., for earth, etc.,

evaṃ tejādiadhikesu sambhāresu rūpādīnaṃ adhikabhāvadassanato icchitabbametaṃ rūpādayo tesaṃ guṇā’’ti.

如是于火等成分较多的元素中而见色等的成分较多之故，你应该同意这「色等是彼（火）等的德」的主张。

Ñ: so from finding visibility, etc., [respectively] in a state of excess in material things that have fire in excess, one may assume that visible data, etc., are [respectively] qualities of these'.

Te vattabbā ‘‘iccheyyāma, yadi āpādhikassa āsavassa gandhato pathavīadhike kappāse gandho adhikataro siyā, tejādhikassa ca uṇhodakassa vaṇṇato sītudakassa vaṇṇo parihāyetha’’.

这样当再反驳他们说：「（你说香是属于地、色是属火）那么，如果那地（界）的成分多的绵的香是胜过水（界）的成分多的香水的香的话，如果那冷水的色彩是减少于火（界）的成分较多的热水的色彩的话，则我们承认你的主张；

Ñ: They should be told: 'We might assume it if there were more odour in cotton, which has earth in excess, than in fermented liquor, which has water in excess, and if the colour of cold water were weaker than the colour of hot water, which has heat in excess.