俱舍論疏 4.185

4.185

Regarding the commentary statement, "Equality of substance... is also likewise for each": this explains by addressing objections. Someone said: First, equality of supporting basis means necessarily having the same supporting faculty. Mental consciousness and its concordant dharmas have one kind of supporting basis, namely, the immediately past mental faculty. The five consciousnesses and their concordant dharmas each have two supporting bases: one is the simultaneously active supporting faculty, and the two is the immediately past mental faculty; as appropriate, all are equality of supporting basis. This text wishes to subsume both kinds of supporting bases, so it does not specifically say "the same single supporting basis." Where various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same supporting basis, this is merely based on their distinct supporting bases, so they say the six consciousnesses and their concordant dharmas are said to have the same single supporting basis. Another explanation: Equality of supporting basis shows that the six consciousnesses and their concordant dharmas each have the same single supporting basis. Therefore, in explaining the concordant cause, it says: "Here, the word 'same' shows that the supporting basis is one." Although the five consciousnesses also rely on the mental faculty, this text merely speaks based on the simultaneously active supporting basis. Second, equality of objective cognitive object means necessarily having the same objective cognitive object. Among objective cognitive objects, sometimes one is cognized, or sometimes many are cognized; as appropriate, all are equality of objective cognitive object. Where various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same objective cognitive object, this merely speaks based on specifically cognizing a single dharma. If not so, as in the contemplation of nonself, excluding what is concordant with itself and what coexists with itself, it cognizes everything generally—could this be the same single objective cognitive object? Another explanation: Equality of objective cognitive object shows that the six consciousnesses and their concordant dharmas each have the same single objective cognitive object. Therefore, various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same single objective cognitive object. Although there are also those that cognize multiple objects, this text merely speaks based on cognizing a single object. Third, equality of aspect. The substance of mind and mental factors is clear and pure; whatever object is cognized, each gives rise to an aspect—either cognizing a single dharma with each [having] a single aspect, or cognizing multiple dharmas with each [having] multiple aspects; whether one or multiple, the aspects are all distinct; as appropriate, all are equality of aspect. Because when multiple appear each has multiple aspects, it does not say "the same single aspect." Where various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same single aspect, this merely refers to the similarity of meaning when cognizing a single object; in truth, they are all distinct. Another explanation: Equality of aspect shows that mind and mental factors cognizing the same object is called "the same single aspect." Therefore, various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same single aspect; although their aspects are distinct and different, based on their being similar and identical they are said to have the same single aspect. Although there are also times when cognizing multiple objects where multiple aspects appear and do not resemble one another when viewed comparatively, here it is merely spoken with respect to cognizing a single object. Examining these explanations of having the same supporting basis, the same objective cognitive object, and the same aspect, they do not grasp the intent of the treatise. When the treatise says "the same supporting basis," it does not mean that because the supporting basis is only a single faculty it is called "the same supporting basis"; rather, although mind and mental factors are many and distinct, they share a single supporting basis, which is called "the same supporting basis." Whether one or two, all are called "the same"; how could one say that although the supporting bases are two, it is merely spoken based on one? "The same objective cognitive object" means that although mind and mental factors are distinct, if conception cognizes blue, feeling and the rest also cognize blue and so forth; because of this, they are said to have the same objective cognitive object. That is, although mind and mental factors collectively cognize immeasurable hundreds of thousands of multiple dharmas and are distinct, because their objective cognitive object is shared, they are all called "having the same objective cognitive object." How could one take the contemplation of nonself to object to a single objective cognitive object, and then explain it away oneself by saying it is merely spoken based on one? "The same aspect" means that when the primary mind gives rise to a single aspect of blue, the various mental factors and so forth also simultaneously give rise to this aspect; just as when the primary mind cognizes multiple objects it gives rise to multiple aspects, the mental factors are also like this, which is called "the same single aspect." How could one say it is merely spoken based on one?