俱舍論記 2.5

2.5

"The treatise states: ... [the verse says:] the rest are spoken of as invisible" means: because this visible form-realm (rūpa-dhātu) can be pointed out as distinct here and there, and there is speech capable of indicating it as "here" or "there," it is named "visible" (sanidarśana). Here, speech is called "seeing" [or "indication" (nidarśana)]; by this standard the rest are invisible. According to Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 4, there are three explanations in all, which state: "Because of two meanings: First, this form definitely accompanies sight (cakṣus), and is therefore named visible. Because form arises concurrently with the eye, just as one has a companion. Second, this form admits of indication, and is therefore named visible. Because it admits of the distinction of being indicated here or there, just like having an objective support. Some say: this form has a reflection that can appear in mirrors and the like, and is therefore named visible. Because it can be shown like that, this is also so. One cannot say that sound, having echoes and the like, should thereby be visible, because [sound and echo] do not arise simultaneously." Fascicles 75 and 128 of the Vibhāṣā also present three explanations, all identical to the Nyāyānusāra. The first master takes the eye as "sight" because it observes and illuminates form. The second explanation takes speech as "sight" [or "indication"] because it can demonstrate. The third explanation takes the reflected image as "sight" because "seeing" means "manifesting". Question: Why does this treatise not fully present all three? Explanation: It was spoken according to what the author of the treatise preferred to say. Another explanation: The Sautrāntika posits that the eye has no real function to be called "seeing"; when the three—sense-faculty, object, and consciousness—come together, it is metaphorically designated that "the eye sees," but it is not a real eye seeing. Furthermore, there is no real matter of a reflected image. The author of the treatise sided with the Sautrāntika; not speaking of the eye seeing and not speaking of the manifestation of reflections, defining indication as "sight" does not contradict the Sautrāntika, and he therefore relied on this explanation. Although one explanation agrees, his intention nevertheless went against the other two explanations. Question: In Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, fascicle 1, wisdom is also called "sight"; hence that treatise says: "Furthermore it is said: all realms are visible, because they are the domain of the wisdom-eye (prajñā-cakṣus)." Why does this treatise not mention it? Explanation: In distinguishing the characteristics of dharmas, the intent lies in differentiation. If one speaks of the seeing of wisdom, all eighteen realms would be named visible; having none that are invisible, there would be no differentiation. That the author of the treatise did not state it was intended for this reason, or he simply omitted discussing it.