俱舍論記 29.122

29.122

「諸謂眼見至不應異釋」者，論主又引第七經破。先敘妄計，後引經非。諸犢子部謂眼見我。破云：應知眼根見所有色，於見非我妄謂見我，故彼便顛墜惡見深坑。故佛經中自決此義，謂唯於蘊假說為我。如人經說：眼及色為緣生於眼識，三和合觸，俱起受、想、思。於中後四所謂眼識及受、想、思是無色蘊。觸攬三成，無別體故，故不別數。論主以經部義破，不同說一切有宗觸有別體。初眼及色名為色蘊，唯由五蘊量，假說名為人。契經即於此假名人中，隨義差別假立名相，或謂有情，有情識故。或名不悅，劫初時人見地味等沒心不悅故，從此為名。或名意生，從意受生故。或名儒童，善童子故。或名能養者、或名所養者、或名有命者、或名生者，是生數故。或是能生者、或是所生者、或名補特伽羅，謂數取諸趣故。亦自稱言我眼見色。復隨世俗說此具壽，謂具足壽命故。有如是天授等名，有如是婆羅門等種族，有如是迦葉波等姓類，乃至世尊恒勅依了義經。此經了義，不應異釋。

Regarding "Those who claim that the eye sees ... should not be interpreted otherwise": the author of the treatise cites a seventh sūtra to refute [them]. First he recounts their false assertion, and then cites the sūtra to reject it. All Vātsīputrīyas claim that the eye sees the self. Refuting them: one should know that the eye faculty sees whatever visible form there is, and regarding seeing what is not a self, falsely claims to see a self; thus they fall headlong into the deep pit of wrong views. Therefore, in the sūtras, the Buddha himself decided this meaning, stating that "self" is only nominally designated with respect to the skandhas. As stated in the *Manuṣya-sūtra*: with eye and visible form as conditions, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; feeling, perception, and volition arise together. Among these, the latter four—namely eye-consciousness, feeling, perception, and volition—are non-material skandhas. Contact is constituted by bringing together the three and has no separate entity, and thus is not counted separately. The author of the treatise refutes them based on the Sautrāntika view, unlike the Sarvāstivāda school which holds that contact has a separate entity. The initial eye and visible form are called the material skandha; solely by measure of the five skandhas is it nominally designated as a person. In the sūtra, based on this nominally designated person, nominal designations and marks are provisionally established in accordance with different meanings: it is called "sentient being" (sattva) because of possessing sentient consciousness; or called "displeased" (apriya) because in the beginning of the kalpa people were displeased in mind when they saw the taste of the earth sinking away, taking its name from this; or called "mind-made" (manomaya) because of taking birth from mind; or called "youth" (māṇava) because of being an auspicious youth; or called "nourisher" (poṣa), or "one nourished" (poṣaka), or "living being" (jīva), or "born one" (jantu) because of being counted among the living; or "producer" (janaka), or "produced one" (janya), or "pudgala" because of repeatedly taking rebirth in the various destinies; and also proclaims itself, saying "I see visible form with my eye." Furthermore, conforming to worldly convention, it speaks of this "venerable one" (āyuṣmat) because of possessing full life-span, having such a name as Devadatta, belonging to such a clan as Brāhmaṇa, belonging to such a gotra as Kāśyapa, and so on; and the World-Honoured One constantly commanded us to rely on sūtras of definitive meaning. This sūtra is of definitive meaning, and should not be interpreted otherwise.