俱舍論疏 1.267

1.267

論「為所發識至各生二處」，論主答也。《正理論》意亦同此釋。《正理論》云「為所依身相端嚴故，界體雖一，而兩處生。若眼、耳根處唯生一，鼻無二穴身不端嚴。此釋不然。如駝、猫等，如是醜陋，何有端嚴？是故諸根各別種類，如是安布差別而生。此待因緣如是差別，因緣有障或不二生，猶如身根、頭、項、腹、背、手、足等處，安布差別種類如是，不應疑難。亦待因緣如是差別，因緣有障或別異生，故見蛇等身支有闕，又見彼類舌非一生。是故諸根安布差別，待因緣起，非為嚴身。若爾，何故說眼等根為令端嚴各生二處？此有別義，非為嚴身。現見世間於諸作用增上圓滿亦說端嚴，若眼等根各闕一處，見、聞、嗅用皆不明了；各具二者明了用生。是故此言為端嚴者，正是為令用增上義。」准此，《正理論》釋，會《婆沙》同《俱舍》。（今難：為若發識少大即得，何用二處？如《正理》前解為勝。）

The treatise says: "In order that the consciousnesses produced by them... are each born in two locations." This is the author of the treatise answering. The intention of the *Nyāyānusāra* also agrees with this explanation. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "It is for the sake of making the supported body's physical marks well-proportioned and dignified that, although the essence of the realm is one, they are born in two locations. If the locations of the eye and ear faculties were each born as only one, and the nose had not two apertures, the body would not be well-proportioned and dignified. This explanation is not correct. Like camels, cats, and the like, being ugly in this way, what dignity do they have? Therefore, the various faculties are of distinct kinds, and are born configured distinctly in this way. This depends on causes and conditions being distinct in this way; if there is an obstruction in the causes and conditions, they might not be born in pairs, just as the locations of the body faculty, head, neck, belly, back, hands, and feet are configured distinctly according to their kinds in this way, which should not be doubted or challenged. They also depend on causes and conditions being distinct in this way; if there is an obstruction in the causes and conditions, they might be born differently, which is why we see snakes and the like having deficiencies in their bodily limbs, and we also see that species possessing tongues that are not singular. Therefore, the distinct configurations of the faculties arise dependent on causes and conditions, not for the sake of beautifying the body. If that is so, why is it said that faculties such as the eye are each born in two locations in order to make them well-proportioned and dignified? There is another meaning here; it is not for the sake of beautifying the body. We currently observe in the world that when various functions are predominantly complete, this is also called 'well-proportioned and dignified'. If the faculties such as the eye each lacked one location, the functions of seeing, hearing, and smelling would not be distinct and clear; when each possesses two, a distinct and clear function arises. Therefore, this statement that it is 'for the sake of being well-proportioned and dignified' precisely means making their functions predominant." According to this, the *Nyāyānusāra*'s explanation harmonizes the *Vibhāṣā* to agree with the *Kośa*. (Now we challenge: If it were only for generating consciousness, whether small or large would suffice; why the need for two locations? The earlier explanation of the *Nyāyānusāra* is superior.)