俱舍論記 1.113

1.113

「頌曰至名眼等五根」者，頌答。言「彼識依淨色」者，《正理》意云：前彼識依，簡耳等四根。後淨色言，簡無間滅意。又《正理》云「前言顯同分眼，後言顯彼同分眼。」又解：色通十一處，依言簡境，依通六根。淨言簡意，淨通五根及信。色言簡信。又解：若具彼識依淨色方名眼等，隨有所闕不名眼等。若唯言彼識依、不言淨色，即濫等無間依，五識亦以意為依故。故《五事論》第一云「唯說識依，濫無間意。但言淨色，五體應同，故淨色言簡無間意。與眼等識為所依。彼言顯眼等根差別有五（已上論文）。」若唯言彼識淨、不言依色，信亦是淨，應名眼等。若唯言彼識色、不言依淨，十一種色通名色故，皆應名眼等。若但言彼識依淨、不言色，信是其淨，體非是依。用識為依，容有財釋，為遮此釋，故置色言，顯屬主釋。故《正理》云「如是釋者，為遣疑難，須置色言。若識依言，就有財釋則應淨信是眼等根，故置色言。為簡此釋，無有一法以識為依色而是淨可為此釋，是故色言甚為有用（已上論文）。」若但言彼識依色不言淨，扶根四境亦名能為依，復通名色應名眼等。若但言彼識淨色、不言依，清池明鏡亦是淨色應名眼等。若具足說依淨色三，方無有失。若但言依淨色、不言彼識，五體應同，顯眼等根差別有五，故言彼識。若但言彼識、不言依淨色，眼等五識應名眼等。或可此中應言彼識所依淨色。若不言所但言依者，即濫身根，身望四識亦是依淨色，而非所依。故頌「依」言顯所依也。

Regarding "The verse says: [...] they are called the five faculties such as the eye": this is the verse answer. Regarding "The subtle form on which that consciousness depends": the intention of the Nyāyānusāra is that the earlier phrase, "on which that consciousness depends", excludes the other four faculties such as the ear; the later phrase, "subtle form", excludes the immediately preceding destroyed mind (samanantara-atīta-manas). Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: "The former words indicate the eye that is sabhāga; the latter words indicate the eye that is tat-sabhāga." Another explanation: form extends to eleven āyatanas; the word "support" (āśraya) excludes the sense objects, while support extends to the six faculties; the word "subtle/clear" (prasāda) excludes the mind, while clearness extends to the five faculties and to faith (śraddhā); the word "form" excludes faith. Another explanation: only if it is completely endowed with [the three conditions of] that consciousness, a support, and clear form is it called the eye and so forth; if it lacks any of them, it is not called the eye and so forth. If one only says "support of that consciousness" without saying "clear form", it would be confused with the equal-and-immediate support (samanantara-pratyaya-āśraya), because the five consciousnesses also take the mind as support. Therefore, the *Pañcavastuka* (Treatise on the Five Dharmas), fascicle 1, states: "If one speaks only of the support of consciousness, it would be confused with the immediate mind. If one says only clear form, the five substances would be identical; thus the words 'clear form' exclude the immediate mind, serving as the support for the eye-consciousness and so forth. The word 'that' shows that the differences among the faculties such as the eye are fivefold (end of quotation)." If one only says "the clarity of that consciousness" without saying "support and form", faith is also clear and should be called the eye and so forth. If one only says "the form of that consciousness" without saying "support and clear", since the eleven kinds of form are all generically called form, they should all be called the eye and so forth. If one only says "the clear support of that consciousness" without saying "form", faith is clear, but its substance is not a support; or using consciousness as support, it might admit a bahuvrīhi interpretation, and to ward off this interpretation, the word "form" is placed to show a genitive tatpuruṣa interpretation. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "Such an explanation, to eliminate doubts and objections, must include the word 'form'. If the phrase 'support of consciousness' is taken as a bahuvrīhi compound, then pure faith would be the eye and other faculties; thus the word 'form' is placed. To exclude this interpretation: there is no single dharma that, taking consciousness as its support, is form and yet pure, which could allow such an interpretation; therefore the word 'form' is extremely useful (end of quotation)." If one says only "the form supporting that consciousness" without saying "clear", the four sense-objects that assist the faculties can also be said to serve as supports, and being generically called form, should be called the eye and so forth. If one says only "the clear form of that consciousness" without saying "support", a clear pool or a bright mirror is also clear form and should be called the eye and so forth. Only if all three—support, clear, and form—are fully stated is there no flaw. If one says only "the clear form of the support" without saying "that consciousness", the five substances would be identical; to show that the differences among the faculties such as the eye are fivefold, it says "that consciousness". If one says only "that consciousness" without saying "the clear form of the support", the five consciousnesses such as the eye should be called the eye and so forth. Or perhaps here it should be said: "the clear form that is the support (āśraya) of that consciousness". If one does not say "that which is supported" (āśraya) but merely says "support" (āśrita), it would be confused with the bodily faculty: relative to the four consciousnesses, the body is also a clear form that is a support, but is not their specific basis (āśraya). Thus the verse's word "support" (āśraya) indicates the specific basis.