俱舍論疏 2.230

2.230

論「及不共者至及麥芽等」，釋不共義，如文可解。《正理論》云「豈不意識境是不共故應名法識？此難非理。通別法名共非遍故、境不具前二種因故。謂通名法，非唯不共。別名法界，非遍攝識。又別法界雖不共餘，而非意識所依根性。是故若法是識所依及不共者，隨彼說識。」述曰：若據通法為名，即色等五境亦是法也。意識便與眼等識共，及自他共，非唯不共。若據別法名為法識，攝意不盡。緣通法意，識此不攝故，唯從根立意識名，即遍而不共。又不共法界唯有不共一義，無依義故，不同根也。「如名鼓聲及麥芽等」者，鼓聲依鼓、鐘聲依鐘，亦依手等有鐘、鼓聲。鐘、鼓是不共依，手等是共依，故名鐘、鼓聲。又鼓等聲雖因手發聲，聲依於鼓，不依手也。麥芽依麥亦依水、土，麥別依故名麥芽，不名水、土芽也。《正理論》云「又此頌文復有餘義。彼謂眼等識所隨故，及不共者，及由眼等是不共故。謂有一生色發四生眼識，無一生眼根發二生識，況有能發四生識者。如是界、趣、族類、身、眼各別發識，故名不共。廣說乃至身亦如是。豈不餘生意根亦發餘生意識（死生位也），非全不發，但不俱時。無一生意一時竝發二生意識可如色等，故作是言，無二況四。如是眼等識所隨故，生界趣等別生識故。由此二因，隨根非境。問：眾緣和合眼識方生，何緣契經唯舉眼、色？答：眼識所依、所緣性故。餘法雖是眼識生緣，而非所依及所緣性。又是眼識隣近緣故。問：豈不空、明能生作意，亦是眼識隣近緣耶？答：眼識生時必藉所依、所緣力故，餘法不定。謂夜行類識不藉明生，水行類識不待空發，人於琉璃、頗胝迦等障色亦爾。天眼發識不假空、明。作意通與六識作共生緣，眼、色非共。是故契經唯舉眼、色。或隨所化宜聞便說。《象跡喻》等諸契經中，作意等緣皆具說故（已上論文）。」

On the Śāstra's: "And because they are unshared ... and the sprout of barley, etc.": This explains the meaning of "unshared," which may be understood from the text. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Is it not the case that the object of mental consciousness is unshared, and therefore it should be called 'consciousness of phenomena'? This objection is unreasonable. Because the general and particular names of 'phenomena' (dharma) are shared and not all-inclusive, and because the object lacks the two aforementioned causes. That is to say, the general name 'phenomena' is not exclusively unshared. The particular name 'dhātu of phenomena' (dharmadhātu) does not universally subsume mental consciousness. Furthermore, although the particular dharmadhātu is unshared with the others, it is not by nature the supporting faculty of mental consciousness. Therefore, if a dharma is the basis of consciousness and is unshared, consciousness is designated in accordance with it." Commentary: If it were named according to general phenomena, then the five objects, visual form and the rest, would also be phenomena. Mental consciousness would then be shared with visual consciousness and the rest, as well as shared between self and other; it would not be exclusively unshared. If it were called "consciousness of phenomena" according to the particular dharma, it would not completely subsume mind. Since it would not subsume mind when cognition takes general phenomena as its object, the name "mental consciousness" is established solely from the faculty; thus it is all-inclusive and unshared. Furthermore, the unshared dharmadhātu possesses only the single meaning of being unshared, and lacks the meaning of being a basis; hence it is not like the faculty. Regarding "just as one speaks of the sound of a drum and the sprout of barley, etc.": The sound of a drum depends on the drum; the sound of a bell depends on the bell. The sound of a bell or a drum also depends on the hand and so forth. The bell and the drum are unshared bases, whereas the hand and so forth are shared bases; therefore they are called the sound of a bell or drum. Furthermore, although the sound of a drum and the like is produced due to the hand, the sound depends upon the drum, not upon the hand. A sprout of barley depends on barley, and also depends on water and soil; because barley is its distinct basis, it is called a "barley sprout," not a "water sprout" or "soil sprout." The Nyāyānusāra states: "Moreover, the text of this stanza has yet another meaning. 'That' means that which consciousness conforms to, and 'unshared' means because the eye and the others are unshared. That is to say, visual form of a single birth can generate the visual consciousnesses of four births, but the visual faculty of a single birth cannot generate the consciousnesses of two births, let alone be capable of generating the consciousnesses of four births. In this manner, each distinct realm, destiny, species, body, and eye generates consciousness separately; therefore they are called unshared. A detailed explanation up to the body is likewise. Does not the mental faculty of another birth also generate the mental consciousness of another birth (at the stages of death and rebirth)? It is not that it does not generate it at all, but they are not simultaneous. There is no mental faculty of a single birth that simultaneously generates the mental consciousnesses of two births as [is the case with] visual form and the rest; therefore it is said: not two, let alone four! In this way, because the eye and the others are what consciousness conforms to, and because they generate consciousness separately according to birth, realm, destiny, and so forth—due to these two reasons, [consciousness is named] in accordance with the faculty and not the object. Question: Consciousness arises only when a concourse of conditions comes together; why does the sūtra mention only the eye and visual form? Answer: Because they have the nature of being the basis and the objective support of visual consciousness. Although other dharmas are conditions for the arising of visual consciousness, they do not have the nature of being its basis or its objective support. Furthermore, it is because they are proximate conditions of visual consciousness. Question: Are not space, light, and the attention capable of generating it also proximate conditions of visual consciousness? Answer: When visual consciousness arises, it necessarily relies on the power of the basis and the objective support, whereas the other dharmas are variable. That is to say, the consciousness of nocturnal creatures does not rely on light to arise; the consciousness of aquatic creatures does not wait upon space to be generated; the same is true for humans with respect to obstructing matter such as lapis lazuli and crystal. The divine eye generates consciousness without relying on space or light. Attention serves as a common condition of arising for all six consciousnesses, whereas the eye and visual form are not common. Therefore, the sūtras mention only the eye and visual form. Alternatively, it is taught in accordance with what is suitable for those being guided to hear. For in various sūtras such as the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint, conditions such as attention are all fully stated (end of the Śāstra passage)."