首楞嚴義疏注經 3.171

3.171

破根生也。初句牒。既無下四句，無境有識，何用破也。既從根生即不須境，若無其境何所分別？所緣既無，能緣何用？汝見下四句，即能生識根無體破也。若謂根生，根非青等是不可見，復無表示。根尚不立，識從何有？下破境生。

This refutes arising from the sense faculty. The first sentence cites [the thesis]. The four sentences from 'since neither forms nor empty space exist' onward are a refutation on the ground that consciousness without an objective realm is of no use. Since it arises from the sense faculty, it would not require an objective realm; but if that realm does not exist, what is there to distinguish? The object of apprehension being absent, what use is that which apprehends? The four sentences from 'Your seeing, moreover' onward are a refutation showing that the sense faculty that could produce consciousness is devoid of substantial nature. If it is claimed that it arises from the sense faculty, the faculty is not blue or any other [colour] and thus cannot be seen, and furthermore has nothing to indicate it. Since the faculty is not even established, from where could consciousness come into being? Below is the refutation of arising from the objective realm.