俱舍論疏 1.147

1.147

論「如是便順至如是廣說」，此引文證後說為正，諸論皆同。《正理論》先說識從根立名，斷為正訖，云「有說彼者是境非根，而無意識緣色等故，名色等識。彼識所依名眼等過，由淨色言所簡別故。」（釋曰：言所依淨色，簡意識故。意識所依，非淨色也。）又云「若爾，色言應成無用，彼識依淨，名眼等根，義已成故。無識所依，淨而非色，為簡彼故應用色言。」釋曰：難也。若謂淨色簡意根者，即應但淨，不假色言。一切法中淨有二種：一者五根、二者謂信。信是心所，非意識所依。五根是色，非是意根。但言彼識依淨，已簡意根，更置色言便為無用。如是釋者，為遣疑難須置色言。若識依言，就有財釋，則應淨信名眼等根，故置色言。為簡此釋，無有一法以識為依。色而是淨，可為此釋，是故色言甚為有用。釋曰：直言彼識依淨若有財釋，信名識依，以信依識有所依識，取其識名名為識依，體復是淨。若直言彼識依淨不置色言，則濫有財釋。信名為識依，復是其淨，即應淨信名眼等根。若置色言不濫此釋，無色是淨，用識為依，就有財釋名為識依，故置色言甚為有用。有人不得此意，以識依淨三字相違是有財釋，云有一分有財釋。誤也。又云「又於此中，前言為簡耳等四根。彼雖皆用淨色為性，而彼非為眼識所依，故彼四根非眼根攝。後言為簡無間滅依。彼雖亦為眼識所依，而彼非用淨色為性，故彼意根非眼根攝。或復前言顯同分眼，後言為顯彼同分眼。餘根亦爾。」釋曰：前言，是眼識所依。後言，是淨色也。又云「若爾，淨色相無別，故應不成五。不爾，功能有差別故。如何得知功能別者？不共境識，所依定故。」乃至廣說有部等計五根以淨色為體，大眾部五根以肉團為體，覺天以四大為體。

The treatise says: "In this way it conforms... thus spoken extensively"; this cites text to prove that the latter explanation is the correct one, and all treatises agree. The Nyāyānusāra first explains that consciousness derives its name from the faculty, and having determined it to be correct, states: "Some say that 'those' refers to the objects, not the faculties; but because there is no mental consciousness that perceives visible form and so forth [in this context], they are called the consciousness of visible form and so forth. The fault that the support of that consciousness would be called the eye and so forth is ruled out by the word 'translucent form' (prasāda-rūpa)." (The commentary says: the words 'the translucent form that is the support' rule out mental consciousness, because the support of mental consciousness is not translucent form.) It also says: "If so, the word 'form' would be useless, because the meaning is already established by saying that the translucent [basis] upon which that consciousness depends is called the eye faculty and so forth. There is no support of consciousness that is translucent and yet not form; so to rule that out, the word 'form' should be used." The commentary says: this is an objection. If one claims that 'translucent form' rules out the mind faculty, then 'translucent' alone would suffice, without needing the word 'form'. Among all phenomena, there are two kinds of translucence: first, the five faculties; second, faith. Faith is a mental factor, not the support of mental consciousness. The five faculties are form, not the mind faculty. Simply saying 'the translucent [basis] upon which that consciousness depends' would already rule out the mind faculty, so adding the word 'form' would be useless. As explained in this way, to dispel doubt and objections, the word 'form' must be added. If 'support of consciousness' is interpreted as a possessive compound (bahuvrīhi), then translucent faith would be called the eye faculty and so forth; hence the word 'form' is added. To exclude this interpretation: there is no phenomenon that takes consciousness as its support, is form, and is translucent, that could be interpreted this way; therefore the word 'form' is very useful. The commentary says: if one simply says 'the translucent upon which that consciousness depends', if taken as a possessive compound, faith would be called 'support of consciousness' (in the sense of having consciousness as its support), because faith relies on consciousness and has consciousness as its support, taking the name of that consciousness and being called 'support of consciousness', and its substance is moreover translucent. If one simply says 'the translucent upon which that consciousness depends' without adding the word 'form', it would be confused with a possessive compound: faith would be called 'support of consciousness' and would also be translucent, which would mean translucent faith would be called the eye faculty and so forth. If the word 'form' is added, it will not be confused with this interpretation, for no form is translucent and takes consciousness as its support, being called 'support of consciousness' in a possessive compound; thus adding the word 'form' is very useful. Some have failed to grasp this idea, thinking that the three words 'the translucent upon which consciousness depends' are mutually contradictory as a possessive compound, and say there is a partial possessive compound; this is erroneous. It also says: "Furthermore, herein, the former statement rules out the four faculties of ear and so forth. Although they all have translucent form as their nature, they are not the support of eye-consciousness, and therefore those four faculties are not subsumed under the eye faculty. The latter statement rules out the immediately preceding destroyed support (samanantarātīta-āśraya). Although it also serves as the support of eye-consciousness, it does not have translucent form as its nature, and therefore that mind faculty is not subsumed under the eye faculty. Or again, the former statement reveals the eye of equal status (sabhāga), and the latter statement reveals the eye of unequal status (tatsabhāga). The remaining faculties are likewise." The commentary says: the former statement is 'support of eye-consciousness'; the latter statement is 'translucent form'. It also says: "If so, since translucent form has no difference in characteristics, they should not form five. That is not so, because there is a difference in function. How is it known that there is a difference in function? Because the supports of consciousnesses with non-common objects are determined." Up to the extensive explanation: the Sarvāstivādins and others hold that the five faculties take translucent form as their substance; the Mahāsāṃghikas hold that the five faculties take lumps of flesh as their substance; and Bhadanta Ghoṣaka holds that they take the four great elements as their substance.