俱舍論記 3.15

3.15

「有餘師說至眼等成根」者，此下第二敘異師。有餘識見等家作如是說：能導養身非眼等用，是識增上，識了避險、受段食故。見色等用亦非異識，故不共事非眼等根別增上用。此即破前師導養身、不共事。所以此中不破莊嚴身者，前第一卷已破云「若本來爾，誰言醜陋？」或前文云「若為嚴身及起說用，但須依處，何用二根？」所以不破。發識等者，識見家亦許，故不別破。

"Other masters say... [up to] the eye and the rest are established as faculties": below this is the second part, presenting the other masters. Other masters who maintain that consciousness sees and the like speak as follows: "Guiding and nourishing the body is not the function of the eye and the rest, but is the sovereignty of consciousness, because it is consciousness that recognizes dangers so as to avoid them, and partakes of edible food. The function of seeing visible forms and the rest is likewise not distinct from consciousness; hence unshared functions are not the distinct sovereign efficacy of the eye and the other faculties." This refutes the earlier masters' claims of guiding and nourishing the body and of unshared functions. Why is beautifying the body not refuted here? In the first fascicle it was already refuted: "If it was originally like this, who would call it ugly?" Or, as the earlier text states: "If it were for beautifying the body and initiating speech, only the physical bases would be required; what would be the use of the two faculties?" For this reason it is not refuted here. As for giving rise to consciousness and the like, the masters of consciousness-seeing also accept it, and therefore do not separately refute it.