俱舍論疏 3.58

3.58

Regarding the passage in the treatise, “Furthermore, the throat, teeth … up to … should not be established as faculties”: This is the fault of excessive over-extension. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “As for the fault of excessive over-extension: the faculties established by them would have no limit, and so forth.” Question: Among the seventy-five dharmas, why is it that among material forms only five are faculties, the primary mind is fully included, among the universal [mental factors] only four—sensation, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment—are taken, among the wholesome [mental factors] only the two dharmas of faith and diligence are taken, and among the non-associated [dharmas] only the life faculty is taken, with the remaining dharmas excluded? Answer: According to other masters, these thirteen dharmas have superior functions in [the processes of] transmigration and cessation, and are therefore established as faculties, whereas the other functions are not superior and are not established as faculties. According to the Dharmaguptakas, these very thirteen dharmas are the bases of the mind: this differentiates it, this sustains it, this defiles it, this provides its provisions, and this purifies it; therefore they are established as faculties, whereas other dharmas are not such and are not established as faculties. The *Nyāyānusāra* states: “Question: Since dharmas mutually have distinct predominant functions, should they all equally be called faculties? Answer: These are exceedingly predominant; their distinct statement is justified. It is like a lion king or a village chief.” This text was already cited earlier. Question: Here, when the superior efficient cause (kāraṇahetu) is correlated with the sovereign fruit (adhipatiphala) to be established as a faculty, how could it be that what is directly a causal condition (hetupratyaya) correlated with a fruit is conversely not established as a faculty?