俱舍論疏 2.167

2.167

論「又如經說至唯為見色」，識見家引經重證也。《正理》救云「又此契經為顯眼等各有二用：一能為門、二能取境。能為門者，且如眼根能為所依，令心、心所各別行相於境而轉。能取境者，且如眼根唯為見色，若異此者唯義相違。諸心、心所唯應見故，然心、心所皆眼為門，汝執見體唯心非所。又受、想等諸心所法，領納、取像、造作等用各各不同，不應唯見。既言唯見，明知是眼，由此眼根唯能見故。如是眼用略有二種：一能為門、二能見色，乃至意處如理當知。故我所宗無違經失。」

The *Śāstra* states: "Furthermore, as a sūtra says... only to see forms." The proponent of 'consciousness sees' cites a sūtra for further proof. The *Nyāyānusāra* rescues [the thesis]: "Furthermore, this sūtra is to reveal that the eye and so on each have two functions: 1. Being able to serve as a gateway; 2. Being able to grasp the object. As for being able to serve as a gateway: the eye-faculty can serve as the basis, causing the distinct modes of activity of the mind and mental factors to operate on the object. As for being able to grasp the object: the eye-faculty is only for seeing forms; if it were otherwise, the meaning would be contradicted. The mind and mental factors would only have to see; yet mind and mental factors all have the eye as their gateway, and you maintain that the essence of seeing is only the mind, not the mental factors. Moreover, mental factors such as feeling and ideation have distinct functions like experiencing, taking marks, and creating, and should not be merely seeing. Since it says 'only to see', it is clear that it is the eye, because this eye-faculty is only able to see. Thus the functions of the eye are briefly two: 1. Being able to serve as a gateway; 2. Being able to see forms; and so forth up to the mind-base, which should be understood accordingly. Therefore, our tenet does not commit the fault of contradicting the sūtras."