俱舍論疏 2.144

2.144

論「以能明利至故亦名見」，論主答也。《雜心》有四義：一觀視者，慧性故；二決定者，無疑故；三堅受者，難捨故；四深入者，洞境故。通論八種見皆具上四義，此論決度名見，略舉二義，決是決定，度是自度，即堅受也。定中雖無計度，有餘義故，亦名見也。眼根雖無決、度二義，而有明利、觀照二義，故亦名見。明利則義當《雜心》深入，觀照則義當《雜心》觀視。尊者世友眼見，此是有部正義。尊者法救眼識見，尊者妙音眼識相應慧見，譬喻者眼識同時心、心所法和合見。又說犢子部心、心所和合見。問：諸論皆破識慧和合，何故此論唯破識見耶？答：《雜心》云「同分眼見色，非彼眼識見，非慧、非和合，不見障色故。」准《雜心》文，不見障色之因通破三計；今此論破其識見、餘二不立，故但破一，例亦破餘。

The *Śāstra* states: "Because it is able to perceive clearly and brightly... therefore it is also named a view." The author of the treatise answers. The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* has four meanings: 1. Contemplating and observing, because its nature is wisdom; 2. Determining, because it is free of doubt; 3. Firm adherence, because it is difficult to relinquish; 4. Deep entry, because it penetrates the object. Generally speaking, the eight kinds of views all possess the above four meanings. When this treatise designates 'judging and deliberating' as a view, it briefly adduces two meanings: 'judging' is determining, and 'deliberating' is assessing on one's own, which is firm adherence. Although there is no calculating deliberation within absorption (*samādhi*), because the remaining meanings are present, it is also named a view. Although the eye-faculty lacks the two meanings of judging and deliberating, it possesses the two meanings of brightness and contemplation, and therefore is also named a view. Brightness corresponds in meaning to the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*'s 'deep entry', and contemplation corresponds in meaning to the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*'s 'contemplating and observing'. The Venerable Vasumitra held that the eye sees; this is the orthodox view of the Sarvāstivādins. The Venerable Dharmatrāta held that eye-consciousness sees. The Venerable Ghoṣaka held that the wisdom associated with eye-consciousness sees. The Dārṣṭāntikas held that the simultaneous mind and mental factors of eye-consciousness see in combination. Furthermore, it is said that the Vātsīputrīyas held that mind and mental factors in combination see. Question: All treatises refute the combination of consciousness and wisdom; why does this treatise solely refute the view that consciousness sees? Answer: The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* states: 'The homologous eye sees visible form, not that eye-consciousness sees, nor wisdom, nor a combination, because obscured form is not seen.' According to the text of the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*, the reason of 'not seeing obscured form' applies generally to refute all three theories. Now this treatise refutes its view that consciousness sees, and since the other two are not maintained, it simply refutes the one; by analogy, the others are also refuted.