俱舍論記 2.184

2.184

「眼根極微至不可見故」者，此下第三明同分等。前四根可解。身根定無皆是同分，乃至極熱捺落迦中猛焰纏身，猶有身根是彼同分。說一切有部師傳說：身根設遍發識，身應散壞。以無身根及所取境，各一極微前後間隔，為所依、緣能發身識。以五識身決定積集眾多極微，方成所依、所緣性故，能發自識。即由此理，亦說極微一一名無見體。以一極微不可見故，要多積集方名有見。若於身中一重根一重境，即有根、境各一極微發識之過，又隔身根令成多分斷壞之過，故言身應散壞。問：鼻、舌二根亦遍發識，何不散壞？解云：鼻、舌二根，身為依持，遍發不散。身無別依，遍發即散。又問：鼻、舌根微為但傍布，亦通重累。若說傍布，即有鼻、舌一微對境同身根過，不成積集。若說重累，遍發識時，還有根、境相隔各一極微為依、緣過。解云：鼻、舌根微形但傍布，雖無重累傍布，名積集故，無一微發識之過。又根性利不假重累，又內依身相依有力。難云：身根觸境前後相間，亦傍積集應遍發識。何故乃言以無根、境各一極微為所依、緣能發身識？解云：夫積集有二，一傍名積集、二重累名積集。言五識決定積集多微成依、緣者，據總相說。隨其所應，若別分別鼻、舌，即傍名積集。身根即據前後及傍方名積集，故彼身根但傍積集不能發識，又根性鈍要假重累，相依有力方能取境。又無別依，故須重累。又解：鼻、舌根微亦通重累，雖復根、境前後相間能遍發識，傍名積集故、又性利故、又內依身相依有力。由此義殊，故與身別。雖有兩解，鼻、舌根微前解似勝。問：如入第三定時，遍身受輕安樂，身應散壞。解云：正入定時不發身識，發身識時即便出定，故無遍身受輕安樂。若依經部，身根能遍發識，故《正理》第七云「又彼上座論宗所說，全身設在冷煖水中，身根極微遍能生識（已上論文。論主意朋經部，故言傳說）。」

Regarding the passage from "The atoms of the visual faculty" up to "because it cannot be seen": below this is the third [part], clarifying similar-functioning [faculties] (sabhāga) and the like. The first four faculties can be understood. The bodily faculty is definitely never entirely similar-functioning; even when engulfed in fierce flames in the intensely hot Naraka, there are still bodily faculties that are of that same category (tatsabhāga). The masters of the Sarvāstivāda transmit the tradition that: if the bodily faculty were to generate consciousness throughout entirely, the body would disintegrate and be destroyed. This is because there cannot be a single atom each of the bodily faculty and of its apprehended object, spaced alternately before and behind, serving as basis and objective support capable of generating bodily consciousness. Because the five consciousness-bodies must definitely assemble numerous atoms before they can constitute the nature of being a basis and an objective support, they are able to generate their own consciousness. For this reason, each individual atom is also said to lack visible substance (sanidarśana-dravya). Because a single atom cannot be seen, it must assemble into many before it is called visible. If within the body there were one layer of faculty and one layer of object, there would be the error of single atoms of faculty and object generating consciousness, and the error of separating the bodily faculty so that it is divided into many severed parts; hence it says the body would disintegrate and be destroyed. Question: The olfactory and gustatory faculties also generate consciousness throughout; why do they not disintegrate? Explanation: The olfactory and gustatory faculties have the body as their support; generating [consciousness] throughout, they do not disintegrate. The body has no other support; generating [consciousness] throughout, it would disintegrate. Another question: Are the atoms of the olfactory and gustatory faculties only arranged laterally, or do they also include vertical layering? If it is said that they are arranged laterally, then single atoms of the nose and tongue would face objects just as in the error of the bodily faculty, failing to form an assembly. If it is said that they are vertically layered, then when generating consciousness throughout, there would still be the error of alternating single atoms of faculty and object acting as basis and objective support. Explanation: The atoms of the olfactory and gustatory faculties are shaped only in lateral arrangement; although they have no vertical layering, lateral arrangement is termed assembly, so there is no error of a single atom generating consciousness. Furthermore, their faculty nature is sharp and does not require vertical layering; and relying internally on the body, their mutual reliance possesses strength. Objection: When the bodily faculty touches objects alternating front and back, it is also laterally assembled; it should generate consciousness throughout. Why then say that because single atoms of faculty and object cannot serve as basis and objective support, [they cannot] generate bodily consciousness? Explanation: There are two kinds of assembly: first, lateral is termed assembly; second, vertical layering is termed assembly. When it is said that the five consciousnesses definitely assemble multiple atoms to become basis and objective support, this is stated in terms of their general characteristics. According to what is appropriate, if distinguished specifically, the nose and tongue are laterally termed assembly. For the bodily faculty, it is only based on both front-and-back and lateral that it is termed assembly; therefore, the bodily faculty cannot generate consciousness by lateral assembly alone. Furthermore, its faculty nature is dull and requires vertical layering; having strength through mutual reliance, it can only then apprehend objects. Moreover, it lacks any other support, so it must be vertically layered. Another explanation: The atoms of the olfactory and gustatory faculties also extend to vertical layering; although faculty and object alternate front and back, they are able to generate consciousness throughout because lateral is termed assembly, because their nature is sharp, and because relying internally on the body, their mutual reliance possesses strength. Due to these distinct meanings, they differ from the body. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation of the atoms of the olfactory and gustatory faculties seems superior. Question: When one enters the third dhyāna and experiences the bliss of pliancy throughout the entire body, the body should disintegrate. Explanation: When one is properly entering absorption, one does not generate bodily consciousness; when generating bodily consciousness, one immediately emerges from absorption. Hence one does not experience the bliss of pliancy throughout the entire body [via bodily consciousness]. According to the Sautrāntika, the bodily faculty can generate consciousness throughout; hence the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 7, says: "Furthermore, what that Sthavira school asserts is that even if the entire body is placed in cold or warm water, the atoms of the bodily faculty can generate consciousness throughout (the above is the treatise text. The author of the treatise inwardly sides with the Sautrāntika, hence he says 'transmit the tradition')."