俱舍論記 2.105

2.105

「此中眼界至應說自用」者，此下別釋十七界，此即釋十一界。就中，一正釋、二辨差別，此即正釋。六根各別對彼六境，名為自境。又解：五根若取自境名自境，意根通取一切皆名自境。問：過、未曾、當用皆說名同分，過、未曾、當覺皆應名執受。解云：有執受義異體相有，要假相依方成有義，故唯現在。同分據有作用，用非離體，故約曾、當皆名同分。又解：分是類義，可以遍收同類。執受非類，所以唯局現在。問：意能生識可名同分，無學後意既不生識，應非同分。解云：得同分名有二，一生識、二取境。無學後意雖不生識，能取境故，名為同分。「迦濕彌邏」，迦云惡，濕彌羅云名，舊云罽賓，訛也。然舊《俱舍》云是西方師，翻者謬也。西方諸師，即是迦濕彌羅國西健馱邏國，彼亦多有說一切有部師。彼於不生開為二者。此解不然，若於不生有根無識，生中亦有，何獨不生？生既不開，不生如何別立？此即違理。又《婆沙》云「舊此國師說有五種，西方諸師說有四種。今此國師說有四種，西方諸師說有五種。」造《婆沙》時既取四種為正，明知說五非理，此即文證。如眼既然，乃至身界應知亦爾。意界已、正、當生皆同分，故彼同分唯不生法。過、現生意起必緣境，故皆同分。過、現、當生眼等五根，有不假緣生，故有彼同分，非同意界。餘文可知。

Regarding 'Herein, from the eye element... one should speak of its own function': below this, the seventeen elements are explained individually; this part explains eleven elements. Within it, first is the direct explanation, and second is the distinction of differences; this is the direct explanation. The six sense faculties individually correspond to those six sense objects, which are termed 'their own objects'. Another explanation says: when the five faculties grasp their own objects, they are called 'their own objects'; the mental faculty comprehensively grasps all things, so all are termed 'its own objects'. Question: Functions that were past or will be future are all called sabhāga; should awareness that was past or will be future all be called upātta (appropriated)? Explanation: The meaning of upātta requires different entities to exist together, and it necessarily depends on mutual support to constitute the meaning of existence; therefore it is present only. Sabhāga is based on having activity, and activity is not separate from the entity; therefore it is called sabhāga with reference to both the past and the future. Another explanation says: bhāga means 'class' (jāti), which can universally subsume the same class. Upātta is not a class, which is why it is restricted exclusively to the present. Question: The mind can generate consciousness, so it may be called sabhāga; since the final mind of an aśaikṣa does not generate consciousness, it should not be sabhāga. Explanation: Attaining the name sabhāga has two [criteria]: first, generating consciousness; second, grasping an object. Although the final mind of an aśaikṣa does not generate consciousness, because it can grasp an object, it is called sabhāga. 'Kāśmīra': kā means 'bad', śmīra means 'reputation'; formerly called Jibin, which was an error. However, the old Kośa states that these were the Western Masters, which was a translator's error. The Western Masters are from Gandhāra, west of the country of Kāśmīra, where there were also many Sarvāstivāda masters. As for their opening the non-arising into two: this explanation is not correct. If within non-arising there can be a faculty without consciousness, this also exists within the arising; why only non-arising? Since the arising is not divided, why should non-arising be established separately? This contradicts reason. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'The former masters of this country said there are five kinds, while the Western Masters said there are four kinds. The present masters of this country say there are four kinds, while the Western Masters say there are five kinds.' When the Mahāvibhāṣā was composed, four kinds were taken as correct; thus we clearly know that speaking of five is contrary to reason, which is textual evidence. Just as it is for the eye, down to the body element it should be known to be the same. The mental element, whether already arisen, currently arising, or to arise, is entirely sabhāga; therefore its tatsabhāga comprises only unarisen dharmas. Past and present mental states that arise necessarily cognize objects, so they are all sabhāga. Past, present, and future arising five faculties, such as the eye, may arise without depending on conditions; hence they have tatsabhāga, unlike the mental element. The remaining text can be understood.