成唯識論述記 2.54

2.54

述曰：然雖識變，作用有別。發眼等識，名眼等根，此為依故生眼等識，勿謂識變但是色者，皆無差別，此即結根及解根義。然且依常徒義釋此文者，以現行清淨色為五根，諸處但言四大所造淨色名根，若約《觀所緣論》，陳那即以五識種子名為五根，或以五塵種子名根。第四卷中護法救義，五識業種名為五根。《對法》第一云：眼界者，謂曾現見色及此種子。又《瑜伽．決擇分》等，皆以現行、種子二法為眼、根等。然唯種家釋《對法》等者，由本熏時心變似色，從熏時為名。又即識之種子現有生識用，故假說為現行色根。若唯說現行為根，釋唯種子文者，如下第四卷及《觀所緣論》。釋通現、種文者，實唯現行是根，以大所造說淨色故，對所生之果識，假說現行為功能，實唯現色功能生識之義，大小共成，舉之以顯體實有無，彼此競故不說，以聖教言根謂淨色故，其實種子非五根性。俱用之家如下第四，自當廣釋，不能預述。唯種子者，陳那等義，以《二十唯識》說五色根皆是種子，如第四卷引。唯現行者，無別師說，此中但約諸處教，文顯相義說，即護法等，通用現、種為根。根既然，境亦爾，且助陳那，故言業種亦是根體，可尋下第四及《觀所緣》、《二十唯識》、《對法》第一等……，不能繁引。

The Commentary states: However, although they are transformations of consciousness, their functions are distinct. Those that give rise to the visual and other consciousnesses are called the eye and other faculties; because these serve as the support, the visual and other consciousnesses are produced. One must not say that whatever is transformed by consciousness and is merely form has no distinction whatsoever; this, then, concludes the sense faculties and explains the definition of the faculties. Now, if one explains this text according to the ordinary masters' view, they take manifest pure form as the five faculties; in various places it is merely said that the pure form transformed by the four great elements is called a faculty. If according to the Ālambanaparīkṣā, Dignāga takes the seeds of the five consciousnesses to be the five faculties, or takes the seeds of the five domains to be the faculties. In the fourth fascicle, in Dharmapāla's defense of the meaning, the karmic seeds of the five consciousnesses are called the five faculties. The first fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: "The eye-element refers to what has previously seen form and its seed." Furthermore, the Viniscayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, etc., all take both manifest and seed dharmas to be the eye and other faculties. However, those who solely advocate seeds explain the Abhidharma-samuccaya, etc., by saying that when originally perfumed, the mind transformed resembling form, and it takes its name from the time of perfuming; also, because the seeds of consciousness presently have the function of producing consciousness, they are nominally described as manifest material faculties. If one solely explains manifest activity as the faculty, the explanation of the text on seeds alone is as given in the fourth fascicle below and the Ālambanaparīkṣā. As for explaining the texts that encompass both the manifest and seeds: in reality, only manifest activity is the faculty; because it is said to be pure form transformed by the great elements, in contrast to the resultant consciousness that is produced, manifest activity is nominally called functionality. The meaning that truly only the functionality of manifest form produces consciousness is established in common by both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; it is brought forward to show whether the entity is real or non-existent, and because both sides dispute it, it is not spoken of, for the holy teaching says that the faculties refer to pure form; in reality, seeds are not the nature of the five faculties. The school that uses both will be explained extensively below in the fourth fascicle; it cannot be stated in advance. The view of seeds alone is the doctrine of Dignāga and others, because the Viṃśikā says that the five material faculties are all seeds, as cited in the fourth fascicle. The view of manifest activity alone has no separate master who propounds it; here it is merely stated according to the evident marks and meanings of texts throughout various teachings; that is, Dharmapāla and others universally use both the manifest and seeds as the faculties. Since the faculties are like this, the domains are also like that. Here, in support of Dignāga, it is therefore said that karmic seeds are also the entity of the faculties; one may look into the fourth fascicle below, as well as the Ālambanaparīkṣā, the Viṃśikā, the first fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya, and so forth... they cannot be cited in full.