俱舍論疏 2.182

2.182

論曰「至則不能聞」，明有部宗眼、耳不能取至境也。若依勝論外道，六根皆取至境。《正理論》敘「一師說云：耳取於至境，聲相續轉來入耳故。又自能聞耳中聲故。此說非理。手纔執鈴，聲頓息故。若聲相續來入耳中，手執鈴時依鈴聲可息，從彼傳生中間離質相續不息，此聲應可聞。然執鈴時，現見一切鈴聲頓息都不可聞。不可息餘，餘亦隨息；不聞餘故，餘亦不聞。云云。」此難傳來可爾，若聲頓發與光同者，即不成難。然自能聞耳中聲者，非如香等隣鼻等根，雖在耳中仍非至境。由語逼耳字句難知，欲審聽者遮其苦逼，故耳唯能取非至境。又云「意根亦唯取非至境，不取俱有相應法故。又無色故非能有至，是故意根取不至境。」已上文同此論。

The Śāstra says: "[...] then it cannot hear": this clarifies that according to the Vaibhāṣika school, the eye and ear cannot grasp a contiguous object. If according to the Vaiśeṣika non-Buddhists, all six sense-faculties grasp contiguous objects. The Nyāyānusāra states: "One master says: The ear grasps a contiguous object, because sound operates in succession and comes into the ear, and also because one can hear the sound inside one's own ear. This statement is unreasonable, because the moment the hand touches the bell, the sound abruptly ceases. If sound successively came into the ear, when the hand touches the bell, the sound based on the bell might cease, but the sound that had been transmitted from it in the interim, separated from the substance, continuing without cease, should still be audible. Yet when the bell is touched, we immediately observe that all sound of the bell abruptly ceases and cannot be heard at all. One cannot say that when one part ceases, the others also cease accordingly; or that because one does not hear one part, one also does not hear the rest, and so forth." This objection holds if sound travels; but if sound arises all at once like light, then it does not constitute a valid objection. Furthermore, that one can hear the sound inside one's own ear is not like fragrance and the rest being contiguous to the nose and other sense-faculties; although inside the ear, it is still not a contiguous object. Because speech pressing close to the ear makes words and phrases hard to recognise, one who wishes to listen carefully avoids such distressing proximity; therefore the ear can only grasp non-contiguous objects. It also says: "The mental faculty also only grasps non-contiguous objects, because it does not grasp dharmas that are co-existent and associated [with it]. Furthermore, because it is immaterial, it cannot have contiguity; therefore the mental faculty grasps non-contiguous objects." The above passage is identical to this Śāstra.