成唯識論演祕 4.222

4.222

答：理雖皆通，若順彼論第二應善，正順頌文。頌文既云功能、境色無始為因，明即相分種、現分二。故彼釋云：以能發識比知有根，此但功能，非外所造，故本識上五色功能名眼等根亦不違理。功能發識理無違故，在識在餘雖不可說，而外諸法理非有故。定應許此在識非餘，此根功能與前境色，從無始際展轉為因，謂此功能至成就位，生現識上五內境色。此內境色後能引起異熟識上五根功能，根、境二色與識一異，或非一異，隨樂應說。既言生彼五內色境，復云根境二色，明知功能即相分種，現名色識。

Answer: Although all are logically viable, if one conforms to that treatise, the second should be the best, as it directly conforms to the verse text. Since the verse says that capacity and objective form have been causes from beginningless time, it is clear that this refers to the nimitta-bhāga's division into seed and active manifestation. Therefore, that commentary explains: Because of the ability to produce consciousness, we infer by analogy that there are sense-faculties (indriya); these are merely capacities and are not externally made; thus, positing the five material capacities upon the root consciousness as the eye and other faculties also does not contradict reason. Since the capacity producing consciousness is without logical contradiction, although it cannot be described as being in consciousness or in something else, external phenomena do not exist according to reason. One must definitely accept that this is within consciousness and not elsewhere. These faculty-capacities and the preceding objective forms serve mutually as causes from beginningless time—meaning that when these capacities reach maturity, they generate the five internal objective forms upon the active consciousness. These internal objective forms can subsequently induce the five faculty-capacities upon the maturation-consciousness (vipāka-vijñāna). Whether the two kinds of form—faculty and object—are identical with, different from, or neither identical with nor different from consciousness may be stated according to one's preference. Since it says they generate those five internal material objects and also mentions the two forms of faculty and object, we clearly know that capacity is the nimitta-bhāga's seed, and the active manifestation is called visible form-consciousness.