味境Taste-domain
色法十一之第九。五境之第四。為舌根（→#63）所緣、舌識（→#4）所緣之相分。集論列六味 + 三情感軸 + 三起源軸 = 十二種分類（T1606）。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
色法十一之第九。五境之第四。為舌根（→#63）所緣、舌識（→#4）所緣之相分。集論列六味 + 三情感軸 + 三起源軸 = 十二種分類（《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》）。
經
[共傳] SA 273 攝 / DN 22 標準形式：
Jivhañca paṭicca rase ca uppajjati jivhā-viññāṇaṃ. 緣舌與味，生舌識。
[大乘] 《大佛頂首楞嚴經》卷五（藥王藥上味因圓通章），二十五圓通之第四「妙味覺明」：
藥王藥上二王子，並在會中五百梵天，即從座起，頂禮佛足，而白佛言：我無始劫為世良醫，口中嘗此娑婆世界草木金石，名數凡有十萬八千。如是悉知苦、酢、鹹、淡、甘、辛等味，並諸和合、俱生、變異，是冷是熱，有毒無毒，悉能遍知。承事如來，了知味性，非空非有，非即身心，非離身心。分別味因，從是開悟。蒙佛如來印我昆季，藥王藥上，二菩薩名。今於會中，為法王子。因味覺明，位登菩薩。佛問圓通，如我所證，味因為上。
——⭐⭐⭐ 此圓通段於 baifa 中結構上極特殊：藥王藥上之敘述直接列舉集論／《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 之完整十二種分類——「苦酢鹹淡甘辛」即六味、「和合俱生變異」即三起源軸；「是冷是熱，有毒無毒」更引入印度醫學（Āyurveda）之藥理屬性。「了知味性，非空非有，非即身心，非離身心」之四非否定（同 #67 香嚴童子之非實體論模式）為唯識進路之觀照入路。
論
《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》（T31n1606_p0696b17–19）展開十二種分類：
味者，四大種所造舌根所取義。謂苦、酢、甘、辛、醎、淡，若可意、若不可意、若俱相違，若俱生、若和合、若變異。建立此味，應如香說。
⭐ 三軸 + 十二種：
| 軸 | 數 | 內容 |
|---|---|---|
| 基本味軸 | 6 | tikta 苦 / amla 酢 / madhura 甘 / kaṭuka 辛 / lavaṇa 醎 / kaṣāya 第六（梵作澀，漢作淡——詳梵段教義說明） |
| 情感軸 | 3 | 可意（manojña）/ 不可意（amanojña）/ 俱相違（ubhaya-viparīta） |
| 起源軸 | 3 | 俱生（sahaja）/ 和合（sāṃyogika）/ 變異（pāriṇāmika） |
「建立此味應如香說」——《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 明示味境之 3+3 結構直接複製 #67 香境之分判。
《大乘五蘊論》（T31n1612_p0848b20–21）最簡形式：
云何為味？謂舌境界，甘味、酢味、醎味、辛味、苦味、淡味。
按：味境之架構與 #67 香境平行——同六分子類 + 3+3 軸模式；但六味本身（vs 香之三質性）反映味之現象學分類更精細（甘酸鹹苦辛澀為印度醫學之共傳分類，融入印度阿毘達磨傳統）。⭐ 味境之 [大乘] 圓通敘述直接運用集論之十二分結構，於五境中為獨有——其他四境之圓通敘述不直接列舉集論之內部分類。
梵saṃskṛta
rasa-viṣaya < rasa（味、液、精華、情趣）+ viṣaya（境；詳 #65）。
rasa 為梵文中語義 sweep 最廣之詞之一：
- 狹義（本條）：味（舌之所緣）
- 物理義：液體、汁、津
- 本質義：精華、本質（→ rasāyana「化學/煉金」、rasāmnāya「味經典」）
- 美學義：⭐⭐ 印度詩學/戲劇學之 rasa 理論——9 種美學情趣（śṛṅgāra 艷 / hāsya 笑 / karuṇa 悲 / raudra 怒 / vīra 雄 / bhayānaka 怖 / bībhatsa 厭 / adbhuta 奇 / śānta 寂）為 Bharata Nāṭyaśāstra、Abhinavagupta 等系統化之美學核心範疇。一字貫穿「味覺 → 液體 → 精華 → 美感經驗」之四重印記，乃梵文語義學之典範例。
⚠ In Review · 印歐祖語詞源 provisionally plausible, phonologically uncertain：擬與印歐祖語 *h₃res- / *ras-「流、滲」相關（→ Skt rasati「流動」、Greek ῥέω「流」、Latin ros「露」），semantic path「液 → 味」自然，但 vowel 對應不規則；現代印歐語言學降為「provisionally plausible」而非 confirmed。Pāli rasa 直承同形（無音變；Skt-Pāli identity 之 rare 例之一，同 #67 gandha）。
⭐⭐⭐ 義理翻譯異點 · kaṣāya vs 淡：
Asg 梵本之第六味為 kaṣāya（< √kaṣ「刮、磨」）= 澀味（如未熟柿之收斂 tannin 感），南傳 Pāli 對應為 kasāva，亦為澀。然北傳玄奘漢譯系統（《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》、《大乘五蘊論》、《瑜伽師地論》）統一作「淡」，此乃 Xuanzang 傳統之一致選擇——可能受漢地 5 味（酸苦甘辛鹹）之文化背景影響，將 kaṣāya 重譯為「淡」（中性無味）以避免 6 味中之 ambiguity。梵漢分歧不影響教義，乃翻譯層之 semantic shift；本書漢段 follow 北傳 《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》「淡」之慣例，梵段標 kaṣāya「澀」之原義，雙方並存。
《阿毘達磨集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，Pradhan 校本 [Abhidh-s 4]）：
rasaḥ katamaḥ / catvāri mahābhūtānyupādāya jivhendriya-grāhyo 'rthaḥ / tikto 'mlo madhuraḥ kaṭuko lavaṇaḥ kaṣāyaśca / manojño vā amanojño vā ubhayaviparīto vā sahajo vā sāṃyogiko vā pāriṇāmiko vā //
⚠ In Review · GRETIL（哥廷根大學印度語典電子文獻檔） OCR：jivhendriyabrāhyo → 正讀 jivhendriya-grāhyo（同 §VII typo #3 之 b→g 模式）。
按：5 境樣板 instantiated（Y = jihvā/jivhā）。Asg 之 12-重結構為 6 + 3 + 3 之 disjunctive enumeration（用 vā 分隔），與 #67 香境之 6-重（3 質 + 3 origin）相比加 3 情感軸——味境之情感維度於 abhidharmic 傳統中比香境更明確化（甘味/苦味之直接情感連結強於香之 nuanced 嗅覺）。成唯識仿譯：《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 為 Asg 之逐字 12-重漢譯（除 kaṣāya/淡之翻譯 shift 外字字對應）。
巴pāḷi
南傳 28 色法之 rasa-rūpa，於 visaya 群之第四。
| 瑜伽行派 | 南傳 | 對應度 |
|---|---|---|
| rasa-viṣaya（12 種：6+3+3） | rasa-ārammaṇa（6 tastes，情感軸隱含） | ⚠️ asymmetric (瑜伽行派 adds 6 sub-axes) |
| 第六味 kaṣāya 澀 | kasāva 澀 | ✅ 梵巴一致（皆作澀） |
⭐⭐ Skt 第六味 kaṣāya 與 Pāli kasāva 雙傳一致作「澀」，唯北傳漢譯改為「淡」——此表面玄奘漢譯傳統之 Sino-localization：南傳之 kasāva 直承梵本之澀，北傳漢譯之「淡」乃漢地 cultural adaptation。本條為 baifa 中 梵巴收斂 vs 漢譯 divergent 之 rare 例。
⭐ 6 味為 pan-Buddhist 共傳——非佛教獨有 taxonomy，乃借自 Ayurvedic 醫學（caraka-saṃhitā、suśruta-saṃhitā 之 6-rasa 分類）；藥王藥上圓通 narrative 之「為世良醫……是冷是熱，有毒無毒」明示此 medical-tradition 來源。佛教阿毘達磨採用 Ayurvedic 6-味為 rasa sub-classification 之 base，再加情感 + origin 兩軸 elaborate。
經
Jivhañca paṭicca rase ca uppajjati jivhā-viññāṇaṃ（DN 22, SN 35.93）
論
⚠ In Review · Vism XIV.74 rasa-rūpa 四相逐字 Pāli 待字元核校。南傳對 rasa 之分判 follow 6-味標準（同 Ayurveda）+ 3 情感（iṭṭha/aniṭṭha/majjhima），未明展 3 origin 軸。
按：味境之南北 asymmetry 為最 modest 之一（瑜伽行派 +3 sub-types vs 南傳之隱含）；6 味本身完全共傳（pan-Buddhist 借 Ayurvedic）；唯 origin 軸（俱生/和合/變異）為瑜伽行派闡發——將「味之來源」上升為 abhidharmic taxonomic 軸，乃唯識對現象學之系統分節。南傳將同樣現象學內容置於 paṭṭhāna 之 conditional analysis 框架，非置於 rasa-ārammaṇa 內部。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「味境」之梵文 rasa 為梵語語義廣度甚大之詞之一——本條取其阿毘達磨窄義（舌所緣），梵文內部另有液體（汁、津）、精華（→ rasāyana 化學 / 煉金術）、美學情趣（Bharata《舞論》 rasa 理論，九種美學情趣）等義層，語義鏈「液 → 味 → 精華 → 美感」一字貫穿。⚠️ 印歐祖語詞源不確：擬與印歐祖語 *h₃res- / *ras-「流、滲」相關（→梵 rasati 流動、希臘 ῥέω 流、拉丁 ros 露），語義路徑「液流 → 舌上滋味」自然，但元音對應不規則；現代印歐語言學降為「有可能但未確立」——⚠️ 印歐祖語鏈條不確，如實保留此不確定性，不作確定 IE 重構。⚠️ false-cognate alert：勿以拉丁 succus（汁液）或英 taste 為 rasa 之印歐祖語同源援例——英 taste < 古法 taster < 俗拉丁 *tastāre < 拉丁 taxāre「接觸、處理」< 印歐祖語 *teh₂g-，與 rasa 完全無詞源連繫。Pāli rasa 直承同形（無音變；Skt-Pāli 字面一致例，同 →#67 gandha）。漢字「味」從口、未聲，本義口中嘗知之滋味；玄奘以「味境」對譯「舌能達之滋味境域」。
Asg 五境句法於味境實例化（Y = jihvā-indriya；詳 →#65）：rasaḥ katamaḥ / catvāri mahābhūtānyupādāya jivhendriya-grāhyo 'rthaḥ——依四大種，為舌根所取之事。味境之內部分軸為三軸十二種（《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》）：基本味軸六種（tikta 苦 / amla 酢 / madhura 甘 / kaṭuka 辛 / lavaṇa 醎 / kaṣāya 澀——北傳漢譯統一作「淡」，詳下）、情感軸三種（可意 / 不可意 / 俱相違）、起源軸三種（俱生 / 和合 / 變異）。《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》自注「建立此味，應如香說」——味境之 3+3 結構直接複製 →#67 香境之分判模式。⭐ 六味為全佛教共傳——非佛教獨有，借自印度醫學（Caraka-saṃhitā / Suśruta-saṃhitā 之六 rasa 分類）；佛教阿毘達磨採用後再加情感 + 起源兩軸以豐富分判。與 →#63 舌根為對，與 →#4 舌識為所行境。⭐ 義理翻譯異點：第六味 kaṣāya（< √kaṣ「刮、磨」= 澀，如未熟柿之收斂感），南傳 Pāli kasāva 亦作澀；北傳玄奘漢譯系統（《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》/《大乘五蘊論》/《瑜伽師地論》）統一作「淡」——此乃漢地文化適應，受五味（酸苦甘辛鹹）傳統影響之語義移位。梵巴一致作「澀」，漢譯一致作「淡」；本書漢段沿《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》之「淡」，梵段保留 kaṣāya「澀」之原義，雙方並存，非教義分歧。
rasa-viṣaya ↔ rasa-ārammaṇa（南傳 28 色之 visaya 群第四）：頂層直接對應，含 Skt-Pāli 字面一致（rasa = rasa）例。六味基礎南北完全共傳（均借自 Āyurveda）；情感軸共通（梵 manojña/amanojña/ubhaya-viparīta ↔ 巴 iṭṭha/aniṭṭha/majjhima）；起源軸三種（俱生 / 和合 / 變異）為唯識所立之分判（詳 →#65 南北段）。⭐ 梵巴收斂、漢譯偏移：第六味 kaṣāya（澀）梵巴一致，唯北傳漢譯作「淡」——此為五境中漢地文化適應形成之表層分歧（其他南北分歧皆為唯識—南傳之子分類結構問題，非翻譯詞彙問題）。共傳經式：Jivhañca paṭicca rase ca uppajjati jivhā-viññāṇaṃ（DN 22、SN 35.93；漢 SA 273）。Vism XIV 味境四相待字元核校。
味境有兩條修持進路。其一，食前五觀——東亞叢林之飯前五思（量力受食、具足定慮等）直接於味境生起之際運用，放慢貪著（taṇhā）於滋味之自發反應，以知食如藥為修持格式。其二，藥王藥上之四非否定（→#68 [大乘] 圓通段）——「了知味性，非空非有，非即身心，非離身心」之四非，與 →#67 香嚴童子同一結構，以味境之緣起性為觀照入路：味之現象真實，但無實體底層可立。⭐ 藥王藥上圓通直接列舉集論之十二分結構（苦酢鹹淡甘辛 + 和合俱生變異），以醫藥學知識為入道材料——味境之修行進路以精細之現象學知識為基，再轉向空性現觀。
玄奘漢譯「味境」以「味」（滋味，廣涵可嘗之諸種）+ 「境」合成。英譯選 Taste-domain 而非 Flavor-domain 或 Sapor-domain——taste 中性（可指好可指壞，可指行為亦可指物），對應「味境」之全幅；flavor 偏正面感，sapor 拉丁感過強。本條於五境 cluster 中居第四，十二種分類之架構（6 + 3 + 3）詳 S3 色法論文及驗證報告；第六味 kaṣāya / 淡之梵漢分歧詳 →#68 §梵 段。不可見、有對。
味境 —— 五境之第四。為 →#63 舌根之所緣境，為 →#4 舌識之所行境；依四大種，味塵為性，可嘗為業；三軸立十二種味（基本味 6：苦酢甘辛醎淡 + 情感軸 3 + 起源軸 3）；不可見、有對。
英綜述en-synthesis
Sanskrit rasa-viṣaya compounds rasa (taste, juice, essence, sentiment) and viṣaya (see #65). Rasa is a term of remarkable semantic breadth in Sanskrit, sweeping across four registers: taste (the abhidharmic narrow sense, this entry), liquid/juice (the basic physical referent), essence/quintessence (the philosophical sense, generating rasāyana "alchemy/chemistry" and rasāmnāya "essence-text"), and most distinctively aesthetic sentiment — Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and Abhinavagupta's elaborations crystallize the famous rasa theory of Indian aesthetics: nine fundamental aesthetic sentiments (śṛṅgāra erotic, hāsya comic, karuṇa pathetic, raudra furious, vīra heroic, bhayānaka frightening, bībhatsa disgustful, adbhuta wondrous, śānta peaceful) constituting the foundational categories of Indian poetics, dance, drama, and music. A single Sanskrit word carries the semantic chain taste → juice → essence → aesthetic experience, an arc that any English rendering necessarily collapses. The PIE etymology is provisionally plausible, phonologically uncertain: a connection to PIE *h₃res- / *ras- ("to flow") yields Sanskrit rasati ("flows"), Greek ῥέω ("flow"), and Latin ros ("dew, moisture") with a natural semantic path from "flowing liquid" to "taste" (the juice that flows on the tongue), but the vowel correspondence is irregular and modern Indo-European linguistics treats the connection as suggestive rather than confirmed. Pāli rasa is identical to the Sanskrit (no sound change), one of the rare Skt-Pāli identity cases. (False-cognate alert: English taste < Old French taster < Vulgar Latin *tastāre < Latin taxāre "to handle/touch" < PIE *teh₂g- — unrelated to rasa.) One translation discrepancy worth surfacing: Asaṅga's sixth taste is kaṣāya ("astringent," from √kaṣ "to scratch, scrape" — the puckering tannin-quality of unripe persimmons or strong tea), and the Pāli Theravāda tradition has kasāva ("astringent") in agreement. The Northern Chinese translation tradition (《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》, 《大乘五蘊論》, 《瑜伽師地論》 — all Xuanzang-era) consistently renders this as 淡 (dàn, "bland, mild, tasteless"), not the expected 澀 ("astringent"). The Sino-localization choice may reflect the indigenous Chinese 5-flavor tradition (suān-kǔ-gān-xīn-xián, sour-bitter-sweet-pungent-salty) and a desire to add a sixth taste that fits the Chinese palate's classifications. Sanskrit-Pāli converge on "astringent"; Chinese diverges to "bland." This entry's Chinese segment follows the Northern tradition (淡); the Sanskrit etymology preserves the original (kaṣāya/澀).
The taste-domain in Yogācāra is the fourth of the five viṣayas, structurally elaborated along three axes yielding twelve sub-classifications (per 《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》): a basic-taste axis of six items (tikta bitter, amla sour, madhura sweet, kaṭuka pungent, lavaṇa salty, kaṣāya astringent — rendered 淡 in Chinese), an affective axis of three (manojña pleasant, amanojña unpleasant, ubhaya-viparīta neutral), and an origin axis of three (sahaja co-arisen/native, sāṃyogika compounded/blended, pāriṇāmika transformative/ripened). The 《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 metacommentary explicitly notes that the structural pattern is identical to the smell-domain (#67): 「建立此味，應如香說」 ("the establishment of taste should be understood as the establishment of smell"). The architectural parallel makes sense — both gandha and rasa are chemical-sense modalities lacking the spatial-luminal richness of vision (#65, 25 sub-types) or the semantic-bearing capacity of sound (#66, 11 sub-types) or the proprioceptive richness of touch (#69, 23+ sub-types). The six-taste base is pan-Buddhist — adopted from the Ayurvedic medical tradition (Caraka-saṃhitā, Suśruta-saṃhitā), where the six rasas are the foundational taxonomy of pharmacological action. The Śūraṅgama yuán-tōng narrative makes this transmission-history visible: the Yākuṣa-Yākupa brothers report having been "good physicians (世良醫) for incalculable kalpas, tasting the hundred-thousand-eight-thousand medicinal substances of grass, wood, metal, and stone" — Ayurvedic medical practice as the experiential matrix that delivers the six-taste taxonomy into Buddhist abhidharmic reflection. The architectural distinctiveness of the taste-domain in baifa is that its [大乘] yuán-tōng narrative directly enumerates Asaṅga's twelve-fold structure within itself — "six tastes plus blending-co-arising-transformation, hot-or-cold, with-poison-or-without-poison" reproduces the 6 + 3-origin axes verbatim, with the affective axis implicit in "with-poison-or-without-poison" (the karmic-medical valence of substance). No other yuán-tōng narrative among the five viṣayas enumerates its abhidharmic substructure so explicitly within the [大乘] register itself.
Top-level identification rasa-viṣaya ↔ rasa-ārammaṇa: direct correspondence, including phonological identity (Skt rasa = Pāli rasa, no sound change). The six-taste base is fully shared (and in fact pre-Buddhist, drawn from Ayurvedic medicine). The affective axis is shared (Skt manojña/amanojña/ubhaya-viparīta ↔ Pāli iṭṭha/aniṭṭha/majjhima). The origin axis (sahaja/sāṃyogika/pāriṇāmika) is Yogācāra-distinctive — Theravāda's standard analysis does not give a parallel three-fold origin classification for tastes; the same phenomenology is handled in Theravāda's conditional analysis (paṭṭhāna) framework rather than within the rasa-classification proper. The Sanskrit-Pāli convergence on the sixth taste kaṣāya/kasāva ("astringent") against the Chinese "bland" is the most striking surface fact about the taste-domain's cross-tradition transmission: Indian-canonical traditions agree on the Ayurvedic-derived six-taste list including astringency; the Chinese translation chose to localize the sixth term to "bland," producing a doctrinally-trivial but textually-visible North/South asymmetry that an attentive reader of all three traditions can register. This is the only instance in baifa's color-form cluster where a Sino-localization choice creates a Sanskrit-Pāli vs. Chinese divergence — the broader N-S divergences (sub-classification richness) are Yogācāra-vs-Theravāda; the Chinese-specific shift here is between Indian-canonical and East-Asian-translation.
Taste enters Buddhist contemplative practice through three classical seams. First, the cattle-cud-chewing arhat narrative: Gavāṃpati's tongue-faculty story (#63) places the practitioner squarely on the bodily karmic-residue dimension of taste — past vāk-karma ripening as taste-related affliction, then resolved through observing taste-as-non-substantial. Yākuṣa-Yākupa's yuán-tōng here at #68 takes the opposite arc: taste as systematic medical-pharmacological knowledge that, fully articulated, becomes the entry-point to dharmic insight. The two yuán-tōng narratives that turn on the tongue (one at the faculty layer, one at the object layer) bracket the contemplative range of taste-domain practice. Second, the meal-blessing tradition (食前五觀) — East Asian monastic tradition's five reflections before eating: assessing one's effort relative to what one receives, examining one's virtue relative to the offering, guarding against craving, treating food as medicine for the body's affliction, taking it for the sake of the path. The five reflections work directly at the rasa-domain seam, slowing the spontaneous craving-response (taṇhā) at the moment of taste-arising. Third, the four-fold negation as contemplative formula: Yākuṣa-Yākupa's "neither empty nor existent, neither identical with body-mind nor separate from body-mind" (非空非有，非即身心，非離身心) extends the four-fold negation pattern (catuṣkoṭi) seen at #67 (香嚴童子's "neither wood nor empty space, neither smoke nor fire") to the taste-domain. The contemplative move is to observe taste as a moment of dependent-arising with no substantial cause, no substantial substrate, no substantial location relative to body-mind, no substantial content beyond the momentary phenomenal-flash itself. The taste is real; its apparent self-sufficiency is illusory. The medical-empirical training (knowing which substance produces which taste with which therapeutic action) provides the data; the contemplative move turns the data toward emptiness rather than toward pharmacological mastery. ⚠️ Provenance caveat per #60 譯者按.
Taste-domain (rasa-viṣaya) — the gustatory field cognized by tongue-consciousness, classified along three axes yielding twelve sub-types: six basic tastes (bitter, sour, sweet, pungent, salty, astringent — rendered "bland" in Chinese tradition), three affective categories (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), and three origin categories (native to the substance, compound from blending, transformative through ripening or chemical change). An aspect-portion of consciousness; fourth of the five sense-objects; the only viṣaya whose [大乘] yuán-tōng narrative directly enumerates its abhidharmic structure within itself.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 五境範式之結構分析詳 S3 色法論文（⚠️ 論文編號待確認）。值得標記之 #68 獨特觀察為第六味之梵文-Pāli 對 漢譯分歧——梵 kaṣāya、巴 kasāva 皆作「澀」（astringent），唯北傳玄奘漢譯系統（《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》/《大乘五蘊論》/《瑜伽師地論》）統一作「淡」，此乃 baifa 色法組中唯一一處印度經典 對 漢譯之表面分歧（其他南北分歧皆唯識—南傳之子分類結構問題，非翻譯詞彙問題）。⭐ 六味本身為全佛教借自印度醫學（Caraka-saṃhitā 等），非佛教獨有分類；藥王藥上圓通敘述之「為世良醫……苦酢鹹淡甘辛……和合俱生變異……是冷是熱、有毒無毒」直接列舉集論之十二分結構（→ 是五境圓通敘述中唯一直接引用阿毘達磨內部分類者）。（[大乘] 楞嚴圓通引文之來源框架詳 #60 譯者按 §[大乘] 引文選用說明。）