俱舍論記 1.191

1.191

「言領納觸名自性受」者，謂即此受領納自體。言領觸者，觸是其因，受是其果。受能領納觸順、違、俱相。領納觸果，果即是受，還領自體以領觸相故。故《正理論》釋果云「如言王食國土，非食地土，飲食地中所出。言食國土，舉因顯果。領觸亦然。又如父生子，子之媚好皆似於父。亦如果從種生，果似於因。受從觸生，應知亦然。」若作俱舍師破云：諸心、心所同一剎那俱緣前境，如何可言領相應觸？若從他生及相似者即名為受，子從父生、果從因生，皆應名受。又解：釋此論文，同《顯宗》等，義亦無違。言領觸者，謂領觸因。

"To say 'experiencing contact is called intrinsic feeling'" means that this feeling experiences its own substance. Saying "experiencing contact" is because contact is its cause and feeling is its fruit. Feeling is capable of experiencing the conformable, adverse, and neutral aspects of contact. Experiencing the fruit of contact—the fruit being feeling itself—is still experiencing its own substance by way of experiencing the aspects of contact. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* explains the fruit: "Just as when one says the king consumes the land, he does not eat the soil, but consumes what is produced from the soil; saying that he consumes the land adduces the cause to reveal the fruit. Experiencing contact is also like this. Furthermore, just as when a father begets a son, the son's comeliness resembles the father; and just as when fruit arises from a seed, the fruit resembles the cause; feeling arising from contact should also be understood in this way." If a Kośa master were to refute this, he would say: Mind and mental factors in the same single moment all together cognize the object before them; how can one say that it experiences the associated contact? If arising from another and resembling it is called feeling, then a son arising from a father, or a fruit arising from a seed, should all be called feeling. Another explanation: Interpreting this text of the treatise as identical to the *Xianzong lun*, etc., is also without contradiction in meaning. Saying "experiencing contact" means experiencing the cause of contact.