俱舍論頌疏論本 2.68

2.68

後四句頌破識見家，謂尊者法救許眼識見，尊者世友說眼根見。故論云：若爾，眼根不能決度，云何名見（識見家難也）？以能明了觀照諸色，故亦名見（眼見家答也）。若眼見者，餘識行時亦應名見（此難意。依此宗，六識不並起，故餘識行，眼便無識。許眼見者，何故非見？）。非一切眼皆能現見（眼見家答也）。誰能現見（徵也）？謂同分眼與識合位，能見非餘（釋第五句頌）。若爾，則應彼能依識，見色非眼（識見家難）。眼不爾，眼識定非能見（釋第六句）。所以者何（徵也）？傳說不能觀，被障諸色故。眼根有對，於障外色理不合見。若識見者，識無對故，壁等不礙，應見障色（此眼見家答，釋第七第八句也）。依經部宗，說眼根見假而非實。故論云：經部諸師作如是說，如何共聚，楂掣虛空。眼、色等緣生於眼識，此等於見，孰為能所？但順世情，假興言說眼名能見，識名能了。智者於中不應封著。

The last four lines of the verse refute the theorists who hold that consciousness sees: the Venerable Dharmatrāta held that the eye-consciousness sees, whereas the Venerable Vasumitra stated that the eye faculty sees. Therefore the treatise says: If so, the eye faculty cannot decisively deliberate, so how can it be called a view (an objection by the consciousness-seeing theorist)? Because it can clearly inspect visible forms, it is also called a view (the eye-seeing theorist's reply). If the eye sees, then when other consciousnesses are operating, it should also be called seeing (the point of this objection: according to this school, the six consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously; therefore, when another consciousness operates, the eye lacks consciousness—if you maintain that the eye sees, why is it not seeing?). It is not that all eyes can actually see (the eye-seeing theorist's reply). Which can actually see (a challenge)? The sabhāga eye, in the state of conjunction with consciousness, can see, not others (explaining the fifth line of the verse). If so, then it should be that consciousness supported by it that sees forms, not the eye (objection by the consciousness-seeing theorist). The eye is not like that; eye-consciousness is definitely not that which sees (explaining the sixth line). Why is this (a challenge)? According to tradition, because it cannot perceive forms that are obstructed. The eye faculty possesses resistance (pratigha); regarding forms on the far side of an obstruction, it is illogical that it should see them. If it were consciousness that sees, then because consciousness lacks resistance, walls and the like would not obstruct it, and it should see obstructed forms (this is the eye-seeing theorist's reply, explaining the seventh and eighth lines). According to the Sautrāntika school, they say that the seeing of the eye faculty is conventional (prajñapti) and not real. Therefore the treatise says: The Sautrāntika masters speak thus: 'Why gather together to beat the empty sky? The eye, form, and so on as conditions produce the eye-consciousness; among these, which is the agent and which is the object of seeing? Merely conforming to worldly convention, we provisionally use the expressions that the eye is that which sees and consciousness is that which apprehends. The wise should not cling to them.'"