[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 2.15 # 俱舍論記 2.15 俱舍論記 2.15 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2.15) 「若法境界至謂眼等五根」者，約三有對四句差別。依《毘婆沙》，若以寬問狹，順後句答；若以狹問廣，順前句答；若互有寬狹，四句分別；若寬狹相似，如是句答。境界有對通心非境，障礙有對通境非心，互有寬狹故成四句。七心界、相應法界，是第一句，為境拘故是境界有對，非更相礙故非障礙有對。色等五境是第二句，更相礙故是障礙有對，非境界拘故非境界有對。眼等五根是第三句，為境拘故是境界有對，更相礙故是障礙有對。非相應法是第四句，非境拘故非境界有對，非更相礙故非障礙有對。若將境界望所緣，境界有對寬、所緣有對狹，故此論文順後句答。所以不將所緣、障礙相對辨者，互不相攝，體無濫故。問：若據用相攝，用各不同；若據體相攝，體即非有境界等別。云何相攝？解云：論用不同，實不相攝。以用從體，不離體故，明相攝也。 > "If a dharma is a cognitive-field ... it refers to the five sense-faculties, the eye and the like" refers to the fourfold permutation (catuṣkoṭi) regarding the three kinds of resistance. According to the Vibhāṣā: if one inquires about the broad with the narrow, it is answered by an affirmative subsequent clause; if one inquires about the narrow with the broad, it is answered by an affirmative prior clause; if they are mutually broad and narrow, it is distinguished by the fourfold permutation; if broad and narrow are similar, it is answered with a corresponding clause. Cognitive-field resistance extends to mind but not objects; obstructive resistance extends to objects but not mind; because they are mutually broad and narrow, they form four alternatives. The seven consciousness realms and the associated dharma-realm are the first alternative: because they are restricted by objects, they possess cognitive-field resistance; because they do not mutually obstruct, they do not possess obstructive resistance. The five fields of form and the like are the second alternative: because they mutually obstruct, they possess obstructive resistance; because they are not restricted by cognitive fields, they do not possess cognitive-field resistance. The five faculties of the eye and the like are the third alternative: because they are restricted by fields, they possess cognitive-field resistance; because they mutually obstruct, they possess obstructive resistance. Dharmas not associated \[with mind\] are the fourth alternative: because they are not restricted by fields, they do not possess cognitive-field resistance; because they do not mutually obstruct, they do not possess obstructive resistance. If one compares cognitive field to objective support, cognitive-field resistance is broad and objective-support resistance is narrow; therefore, the text of this treatise answers with an affirmative subsequent clause. The reason objective support and obstruction are not set against each other for distinction is that they do not mutually subsume each other, so their essences do not overlap. Question: If judged by function, each subsumes differently; if judged by essence, then essence does not have the distinction of cognitive field and the like. How can they subsume each other? Explanation: In discussing functions they differ, and indeed do not subsume each other. Because functions follow essence and are not separate from essence, mutual subsumption is explained. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2.14) - [Next: 2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2.16) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.2.15) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.2.15) · Pramāṇa