俱舍論疏 9.96

9.96

The treatise says: "When the visual and other form [faculties] arise... they obtain the name of the six āyatanas." This presents the intrinsic nature of the fifth link, the six āyatanas (ṣaḍāyatana). The Vibhāṣā says: "What are the six āyatanas? They refer to when the four form faculties and the six āyatanas are already complete; this is precisely the praśākhā state. The state in which the eye and other faculties are not yet able to serve as the support for contact is the state of the six āyatanas." The Nyāyānusāra says: "The intermediate skandhas produced with this very nāmarūpa as condition, possessing the eye and other faculties, but before the triple convergence, are called the six āyatanas. That is to say, after nāmarūpa, when the six āyatanas have already arisen, up until the state where the faculties, objects, and consciousness have not yet completed their convergence—gradually increasing through the stages of inferior, intermediate, and superior—in this state they are collectively named the six āyatanas. Could it be that in this state the various consciousnesses do not arise, such that the three can be said not to have fully converged? Indeed, there is no state in which mental consciousness does not arise. In the state of nāmarūpa, does body consciousness not also arise? How much more, in the state of the six āyatanas, can one say there is no triple convergence? (Following this text, in the state of nāmarūpa, body consciousness arises to feel pain and pleasure.) The remaining consciousness-bodies also have occasion to arise (following this, in the state of the six āyatanas, all consciousnesses may arise generally), yet because they are not constantly pre-eminent, the name 'triple convergence' is not yet established. In this state, only the six āyatanas are pre-eminent; hence the distinction of this state is marked in terms of the six āyatanas." It also states: "Just as a sprout can only arise through the transformation of a seed, so the six āyatanas cannot be produced apart from nāmarūpa, just as rain can fall only depending on clouds. If so, and the six āyatanas are not produced by nāmarūpa [as a cause], how can it be said that 'with nāmarūpa as condition, the six āyatanas [arise]'? (The question's intent is that a seed producing a sprout, or clouds producing rain, are not subsumed under causal conditions (hetupratyaya) and lack the meaning of the five causes, because seed and sprout, or cloud and rain, are not of the same category, etc.) For whatever acts as a condition has an assisting function; it does not necessarily have to generate directly for the meaning of 'condition' to be fulfilled. Just as a fruit, though pulled by projecting karma, will ultimately never arise without completing karma (completing karma is not the direct cause that projects the fruit), so too, though the six āyatanas are brought about by karma, without the condition of nāmarūpa they definitely have no possibility of arising. That is, the six āyatanas brought about by prior karmic formations arise only through the auxiliary condition of nāmarūpa, because they are drawn by the power of the identical continuum. (Following this, although defiled dharmas in the state of nāmarūpa are homogeneous causes (sabhāgahetu) for subsequent defiled dharmas, this is not what is primarily taken. What is meant by conditioning the six āyatanas is that which necessarily serves as a condition for the four faculties such as the eye.) Although with nāmarūpa as condition, form and so forth are also produced, they are produced by the moistening of consciousness in the very first moment; therefore, they are not said to arise with nāmarūpa as condition." Following the intent of this text, the body and defilements that existed in previous states are not what is explained here. Alternatively, having previously explained that consciousness conditions nāmarūpa, it has already generally spoken of conditioning the arising of form and so forth. Now, after nāmarūpa, what further distinct function could form and so forth possess relative to before, such that they must be said to arise from nāmarūpa? Therefore, as explained in the root text, there is no error. (Following the intent of this text, although the simultaneous five skandhas are collectively called links, what did not exist before may be said to arise later, whereas what already existed before is not said to arise due to it; where there are general explanations, they are based on the intrinsic nature of the link.)