俱舍論記 1.143

1.143

「此中已說至十一觸起」者，此下第二明生識總別，如文可知。身識極多緣觸，兩說不同，後說為正。故《婆沙》一百二十七云「問：十一觸中極多緣，幾發生身識？有作是說：一一別緣發生身識，十一種相用增故。有餘師言：極多緣五發生身識，謂四大種、滑等隨一。復有說者，總緣十一亦生身識。問答（云云）。如是說者，緣十一事亦生身識，如緣色處二十種事亦生眼識，此亦應爾。舊《婆沙》觸中生識總別，文少雜亂。良由舊論時屬火焚，遺文雜亂，不引會釋。今所引者，竝是新《婆沙》，既有正文無勞致惑。

Regarding "Herein it has been explained […] eleven tangibles arise": Below, this secondly clarifies whether consciousness arises [from them] collectively or individually, as is understandable from the text. Concerning the maximum number of tangibles that body-consciousness can cognize as its object, two different explanations exist; the latter is correct. Therefore the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 127, states: "Question: Taking as object at most how many among the eleven tangibles does body-consciousness arise? Some say: It arises taking each one individually as object, because the individual characteristics and activities of the eleven kinds are prominent. Other masters say: It arises taking as object at most five, namely, the four great elements and any one among smoothness and the rest. Still others say: It also arises taking all eleven collectively as object." Questions and answers follow (and so forth). "The correct explanation is: It also arises taking eleven entities as object, just as eye-consciousness also arises taking twenty entities in the visible realm as object; here too it should be like this." In the old translation of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, the text on whether consciousness arises collectively or individually with respect to tangibles was slightly confused and disordered. This was truly because the old treatise happened to suffer a fire at that time, leaving the remaining text scattered and disordered, so it is not cited for reconciliation. What are cited now are all from the new *Mahāvibhāṣā*, and since there is an authoritative text, there is no need to harbor doubt.