俱舍論記 16.150

16.150

「此證不成至愛非愛相」者，經部總非，釋經意別。非此前、後兩經之中，世尊為欲決判見等四，所見言相、所聞言相、所覺言相、所知言相，相之言體。然我見此經所說義者，謂佛勸彼，於六境中及於見等四，所見言事、所聞言事、所覺言事、所知言事，事謂體事。應知若六、若四，或緣、不緣，但有所見等言，於中不應增益愛、非愛相起貪、嗔等。問：若不爾者，何故經中眼見色、耳聞聲、意知法耶？解云：經文但言色非眼見、聲非耳聞、法非意知，不即決判唯眼能見、唯耳能聞、意唯知法。或經且據一相以論。

"This proof is not established ... marks of the agreeable and disagreeable": the Sautrāntika broadly refutes this, explaining that the sūtra's intended meaning is different. It is not that within these two sūtras, earlier and later, the World-Honoured One intended to definitively determine the four of the seen and so forth—the mark expressed as what is seen, the mark expressed as what is heard, the mark expressed as what is sensed, and the mark expressed as what is known; "mark" means essence. Rather, as I see the meaning stated in this sūtra, it is that the Buddha exhorted her: among the six objects and among the four of the seen and so forth—the entity expressed as what is seen, the entity expressed as what is heard, the entity expressed as what is sensed, and the entity expressed as what is known; "entity" means real entity—one should know that whether with the six or the four, whether taken as an object or not, whenever there is an expression of what is seen and so forth, one should not superimpose upon it the marks of the agreeable and disagreeable to give rise to greed, hatred, and the like. Question: If that is not the case, why does the sūtra state that the eye sees visible form, the ear hears sound, and the mind knows dharmas? The explanation says: The text of the sūtra merely states that visible form is not seen by the eye, sound is not heard by the ear, and dharmas are not known by the mind; it does not definitively determine that only the eye can see, only the ear can hear, and the mind only knows dharmas. Or rather, the sūtra speaks for the time being on the basis of a single aspect.