俱舍論記 2.15

2.15

"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.