俱舍論疏 3.55

3.55

論「不應語具」，已下彈斥外道立十一根，有與釋同、有與釋別，與前同者不破、與異者即破之。言「不應語具至語方成故」，者，如能見色不待學成，若舌於語有增上用，應自能語不待學成。《正理》云「又語具等亦不名根，不定、雜亂、太過失故。不定失者，何等語具立為語根？能發言音名為語具，此即是舌。若爾，則應尋、伺等法及能引起語業諸風亦立為根，能發語故。又尋、伺等於發言音是勝因故。若謂了色亦由言故，不應獨立眼為根者。理必不然。諸生盲人雖聞說色，不了青等差別相故。」

Regarding the passage in the treatise from “The vocal organ should not [be established as a faculty]” onwards: This refutes the non-Buddhists who establish eleven faculties. Some of these are the same as [those of] the Śākyan [tradition], while others differ from them. Those that are the same as the former are not refuted, while those that differ are promptly refuted. As for the statement, “The vocal organ should not [be established as a faculty] … up to … because speech is accomplished [only through training]”: just as being able to see visible form does not depend upon training to be accomplished, so too, if the tongue had a predominant function with regard to speech, it should naturally be capable of speech without depending on training to be accomplished. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “Furthermore, the vocal organ and so forth are also not called faculties, because of the faults of indefiniteness, confusion, and excessive over-extension. As for the fault of indefiniteness: which vocal organ is established as the faculty of speech? That which can emit vocal sounds is called the vocal organ, which is the tongue. If that were so, then dharmas such as inquiry (vitarka) and investigation (vicāra), as well as the various winds that can produce vocal karma, should also be established as faculties, because they can produce speech. Moreover, inquiry, investigation, and so forth are superior causes in the emission of vocal sounds. If it is claimed that the discernment of visible form also occurs by means of speech, and thus the eye alone should not be established as a faculty, this principle is definitely not so. This is because people blind from birth, even though they hear descriptions of visible form, do not discern the distinctive characteristics of blue and so forth.”