俱舍論記 10.95

10.95

「既爾若許至斯有何過」者，經部轉計。既有前過，我今復解。若許有成觸識，是觸無受，如緣聲初念觸能生後念自類受故。此識名觸，故言是觸。從異境觸後起故，所以無受。於此緣聲初位，前如緣色，末後念有識有受而體非觸，以了境故有識，從前念自類觸生故有受。前念不能生後緣聲初念受故，而體非觸，緣差故然。斯有何過？若緣聲已後更緣色，前最後念緣色識等得名為觸，以能生後同境受故。

Regarding "This being so, if it is admitted … what fault is there in this?": the Sautrāntika shifts its position. Since the preceding fault exists, I will now explain again. If it is admitted that there is a consciousness constituting contact that is contact without feeling, as the contact of the initial moment taking sound as its object can produce feeling of its own class in the subsequent moment. This consciousness is called contact, hence it is said to be contact. Because it arises after a contact of a different object, therefore it lacks feeling. In this initial stage of taking sound as its object, before, as in taking visible form, the final moment has consciousness and has feeling, but its entity is not contact; because of discerning an object there is consciousness, and because of arising from the contact of its own class in the prior moment there is feeling. Because the prior moment cannot produce the feeling of the initial moment taking sound as its object, its entity is not contact; it is thus because conditions are divergent. What fault is there in this? If after sound is taken as object, visible form is again taken as object, the consciousness and so forth of the final moment taking visible form can be called contact, because it can produce a subsequent feeling of the same object.