俱舍論記 2.190

2.190

「何緣色等至及麥芽等」者，此下第六明識隨根立名。一由所依勝、二由不共因。根具二義，隨根說識。境即不然，法界雖是不共，而非所依，五境二義俱闕。意根雖通六識為依，而言不共者，五識有二依，從別立名。意識無別所依，雖標總稱即受別名，故意名不共。文中所以唯約五根解不共，五境名共。不約意、法明者，謂五根不共、五境是共，義無雜亂，所以偏舉；意根不共即有所濫。若據別義，亦五識依，法非是共，所以不說意及法界。又解：所依、不共，隨有即立，不要具二。意是所依，法非所依，故名意識不名法識。不約不共，以意亦能生五識故。雖法非為五識緣，唯意識緣邊是不共，自他意緣亦名共。由唯一義，故文不說。又有別過，若言色等識即濫意識，以彼意識亦緣色等。問：五境二識緣，可便有相濫。法唯一識緣，何不名法識？解云：若據通法，即濫色等；若約別法，攝識不盡。所以不言法識。故《正理》第八云「豈不意識境不共故應名法識？此難非理。通別法名共非遍故，境不具前二種因故。謂通名法，非唯不共。別名法界，非遍攝識。又別法界雖不共餘，而非意識所依根性。是故若法，是識所依及不共者，隨彼說識。色等不然，故不隨彼說色等識（已上論文）。」「如名鼓聲及麥芽等」者，雖復手、鼓俱能生聲，鼓依勝故聲隨鼓變。不共因故、唯生鼓聲故，但名鼓聲。手是劣故，非隨手變，是共因故、亦生餘聲故，不言手聲。水、土亦能生麥等芽，麥等依勝故芽隨麥變，不共因故唯生麥芽，故但名麥芽。水等劣故，非隨彼變，是共因故、亦生餘芽故，不名水芽等。六識生時雖境亦生，以根勝故、不共因故，隨根立名。又《正理》云「有言：根、識俱是內性，境唯是外，故隨根說。有言：根、識俱有情數，色等不定，故隨根說。」

Regarding the passage from "For what reason [is consciousness named after] visible form and so forth..." up to "and like the sprout of barley, and so forth": Below, this sixth section clarifies that consciousness is named after the faculties. First, it is due to the superiority of the support; second, it is due to the non-common cause. Because the faculties possess both meanings, consciousness is designated according to the faculties. The objective fields are not like this: although the dharmadhātu is non-common, it is not a support; the five objective fields lack both meanings. Although the mental faculty serves universally as the support for all six consciousnesses, the reason it is said to be non-common is that the five consciousnesses have two supports and are named after the specific one; mental consciousness has no other support, and though it is designated by a general name, it receives a specific designation; therefore, the mind is called non-common. The reason the text only explains the non-common in terms of the five faculties and calls the five objective fields common—without explaining in terms of the mind and dharmas—is that the five faculties are non-common while the five objective fields are common, so their meanings are not confounded, and thus they are specifically highlighted; if the non-common nature of the mental faculty were raised, there would be ambiguity. If based on specific meanings, [the mind] is also the support of the five consciousnesses, and dharmas are not common; thus it does not mention the mind and the dharmadhātu. Another explanation says: Support and non-common cause—whichever is present, [the designation] is established; it is not necessary to possess both. The mind is a support, whereas dharmas are not a support; therefore, it is called mental consciousness and not dharma-consciousness. It is not formulated based on being non-common, because the mind can also produce the five consciousnesses. Although dharmas do not serve as conditions for the five consciousnesses, being non-common merely in being the objective field solely of mental consciousness, their being the objective field of one's own and others' minds is also called common. Being based on only one meaning, the text does not mention them. Furthermore, there is another fault: if it were called 'form-consciousness' and so forth, it would be confused with mental consciousness, because that mental consciousness also takes form and so forth as its objective fields. Question: The five objective fields are cognized by two consciousnesses, so there could indeed be confusion. Dharmas are cognized by only one consciousness; why is it not called dharma-consciousness? The explanation says: If based on dharmas in the general sense, it would be confused with form and so forth; if based on dharmas in the specific sense, it would not completely subsume the consciousness. Therefore it is not called dharma-consciousness. Hence the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 8, says: "Would not mental consciousness, because its objective field is non-common, properly be called dharma-consciousness? This objection is unreasonable. Because the general and specific designations of dharma are common and non-pervasive, the objective field does not possess the aforementioned two kinds of causes. That is, what is generally called dharma is not exclusively non-common; what is specifically called the dharmadhātu does not pervasively subsume the consciousness. Furthermore, although the specific dharmadhātu is not shared with the rest, it does not have the nature of being the supporting faculty of mental consciousness. Therefore, if a dharma is the support of a consciousness and is non-common, the consciousness is designated according to it. Visible form and so forth are not like this; therefore, they are not called form-consciousness and so forth." (End of the treatise passage.) Regarding "like being named drum-sound, or a sprout of barley, and so forth": Although both the hand and the drum together can produce the sound, because the drum is the superior support, the sound varies according to the drum; because it is a non-common cause and produces only the sound of a drum, it is only called 'drum-sound.' Because the hand is inferior, [the sound] does not vary according to the hand; because it is a common cause and also produces other sounds, it is not called 'hand-sound.' Water and earth can also produce sprouts of barley and the like, but because barley and the like are the superior support, the sprout varies according to the barley; because it is a non-common cause and produces only a barley sprout, it is only called a 'barley sprout.' Because water and the like are inferior, [the sprout] does not vary according to them; because they are common causes and also produce other sprouts, they are not called 'water-sprouts,' and so forth. When the six consciousnesses arise, although the objective fields are also present, because the faculties are superior and are non-common causes, they are named after the faculties. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: "Some say: Both faculties and consciousnesses are of an internal nature, whereas the objective fields are exclusively external; therefore, they are named after the faculties. Some say: Both faculties and consciousnesses belong to the category of sentient beings, whereas visible form and so forth are not fixed; therefore, they are named after the faculties."