成唯識論了義燈 2.56

2.56

五根義以五門分別：一、辨諸宗；二、出體性；三、釋名字；四、類異有殊；五、問答差別。一、辨諸宗者，如《法苑》及疏明。然敘小乘少說別者，大眾等部以所造四塵為五根體，雖無別淨色，然通漏、無漏，佛果及因二位別故。《宗輪論》說如來之身，一切無漏故。若薩婆多四大造四塵，有別清淨色塵為體，是實非假，唯漏、無記。若經部師以四大造淨色為體，是假非實。若成實師四塵造四大，四大成五根，既說大成非色塵也，但是四大以經所說，各別堅等為五根故。《成實論》者，師子胄造，此師子胄本是數論部中出家，今雖歸佛猶敘本義，故非正說。經部如章，說出世部能造所造，俱通假實。世間者假，以虛妄故；出世者實，非妄生故，准此即通漏與無漏。說假如章，一說部師一切諸法，但有其名，都無其體，不說假實、漏與無漏，前辨諸宗。大乘出體，三類不同：一、難陀等，唯說種子名為五根，此有四解如章及疏；二、安惠師，即以遍計所起相分，為五根體，以能所取虛妄起故，然十八界種子各別，如論第四；三、護法等師，是依他起，種子各別。然有二說：一、云唯現；二、通種、現，如《法苑》說，釋名類異及問答中，立通差別。並如《法苑》中說：疏云：眼等根非他心智，及凡夫六識現量所得意，不障二乘、凡夫定心緣之，是現量得。問：五根及能依識身各得何境？答：且眼識依根，緣境之中，假實不同，如次前辨。餘之四識唯眼識知，然五境中辨其假、實，如五境義林辨。問：眼、鼻、耳根何故各二？舌、身二根何各但一？問：舌、身根一可各一處，三根各二，何故各名一界處？問：何故先說眼？耳等耶？問：取境離合與識同、別等？此餘問答，並如界處義林中辨。

The meaning of the five sense faculties is analyzed in five sections: first, distinguishing the various tenets; second, bringing forth their essential nature; third, explaining their names; fourth, differences among their categories; fifth, distinctions in questions and answers. First, regarding distinguishing the various tenets, it is explained as in the Fayuan and the Commentary. However, in recounting the slight differences in the views of the Hīnayāna: the Mahāsāṃghika and other schools take the four created objects [of the senses] as the essential nature of the five sense faculties; although there is no separate subtle pure matter, it nevertheless encompasses both the sāsrava and the anāsrava, because the two stages of the Buddha-fruit and the cause are distinct. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra states that the Tathāgata's body is entirely anāsrava. For the Sarvāstivādins, the four great elements create the four sense objects, and there is a distinct subtle pure matter belonging to the sense object of matter as its essential nature, which is real and not nominal, and is exclusively sāsrava and indeterminate. For the Sautrāntikas, [the five faculties] take subtle pure matter created by the four great elements as their essential nature, which is nominal and not real. For the Harivarman School (Tattvasiddhi), the four sense objects create the four great elements, and the four great elements form the five faculties; since they say the great elements form them, they are not the sense object of matter, but are merely the four great elements, because according to what is taught in the sūtras, the distinct solidity and so forth are the five faculties. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra was composed by Harivarman; this Harivarman originally went forth among the Sāṃkhya school, and now although he has taken refuge in the Buddha, he still presents his original tenets, hence this is not the orthodox explanation. The Sautrāntika is as explained in the chapter. For the Lokottaravāda, both the creators and what is created encompass both nominal and real: the worldly are nominal, because they are false and delusive; the transworldly are real, because they are not falsely produced; following this, they encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava. The Prajñaptivāda is as explained in the chapter. For the Ekavyāvahārika, all dharmas have only their names and lack any substantial entity whatever; they do not speak of nominal or real, sāsrava or anāsrava. The preceding was distinguishing the various tenets. In the Mahāyāna, in bringing forth their essential nature, there are three differing groups: first, Nanda and others say that only seeds are called the five faculties; of this there are four explanations, as in the chapter and the Commentary; second, the master Sthiramati takes the image aspect produced by conceptualization as the essential nature of the five faculties, because the grasper and grasped arise falsely and delusively, yet the seeds of the eighteen dhātus are each distinct, as in fascicle four of the Śāstra; third, Master Dharmapāla and others hold that they are dependent nature (paratantra) and their seeds are each distinct. However, there are two explanations: one says they are exclusively actualized; the other says they encompass both seeds and actualized [states], as explained in the Fayuan. Explaining the names, the differences among categories, and in questions and answers, establishing the general and specific distinctions—these are all as explained in the Fayuan. The Commentary states: 'The eye and other faculties are not the object of direct perception (pratyakṣa) for the knowledge of other minds or the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings; mind does not obstruct the concentrated mind of the two vehicles and ordinary beings from cognizing them, which is attained by direct perception.' Question: What respective objects do the five faculties and the conscious bodies that depend on them cognize? Answer: First, for the eye consciousness depending on its faculty, in cognizing objects, nominal and real are distinct, as analyzed just above. The remaining four consciousnesses are known only by the eye consciousness, yet among the five sense objects distinguishing their nominality and reality is as analyzed in the 'Forest of Meanings on the Five Sense Objects.' Question: Why are the eye, nose, and ear faculties each twofold, while the tongue and body faculties are each only one? Question: If the tongue and body faculties are one, they may each be one āyatana, but since the three faculties are each twofold, why are they each called a single dhātu and āyatana? Question: Why are the eye, ear, and so forth spoken of first? Question: Regarding whether their taking of objects occurs conjoined or disjoined, is it identical with or distinct from consciousness, and so forth? These remaining questions and answers are all analyzed in the 'Forest of Meanings on the Dhātus and Āyatanas.'