成唯識論述記 3.379

3.379

述曰：觸之所取可意、不可意及俱相違相，與受所取順益、損害及俱相違相，極相隣近。相隣近者，是相似義，即可意等相與順益等相，行相極相似，故名為相隣。如世有言，此物彼物深極相似，相似、相隣體一名異，此解即是約境相近。又觸引發受勝餘心所，故觸觸苦等觸時，受受於苦等受，三受分位，觸、受相同。此解即是行相相似，故名為勝，餘不領此可意等相及苦等位，故《集論》等不說作依。問：觸似三和，名分別變異；受似於觸，名分別觸耶？答：釋此難至受當知。然今大乘同一切有部觸體是實，唯經部一師三和成觸者，難大乘曰：說觸是三和，何得有實體？為破彼計，故次說云。

The Commentary states: The aspects of agreeable, disagreeable, and neither grasped by contact, and the aspects of beneficial, harmful, and neither grasped by feeling, are extremely adjacent. 'Extremely adjacent' means that they are similar; that is, the aspects of agreeable and so forth are extremely similar in mode of activity (ākāra) to the aspects of beneficial and so forth, and hence are called 'adjacent.' As people say in the world, this thing and that thing are deeply similar; 'similar' and 'adjacent' are one in substance, differing only in name. This explanation is based on the proximity of the objective sphere. Furthermore, contact triggers feeling more predominantly than other mental factors; thus when contact contacts painful contact, feeling feels painful feeling; in the states of the three feelings, contact and feeling are identical. This explanation is based on similarity in mode of activity, and hence is called 'predominant.' Other mental factors do not experience these agreeable and other aspects, nor the states of pain and so forth; therefore the Abhidharmasamuccaya and other texts do not speak of it as serving as their basis. Question: If contact resembles the coming together of the three and is called 'discriminating modification,' does feeling resemble contact and is it called 'discriminating contact'? Answer: The resolution to this objection will be understood when we arrive at the section on feeling. Now, the Mahāyāna agrees with the Sarvāstivāda that the substance of contact is real; only a Sautrāntika master who holds that contact is established by the coming together of the three objects to the Mahāyāna: 'You say contact is the coming together of the three; how can it have a real substance?' In order to refute their view, the treatise next states: