唯識二十論述記 1.248

1.248

有說非理。若五色根即五識種，十八界種，應成雜亂，如是便有十一過失，廣如彼說。然護法論師，假朋陳那執，復轉救言：「能感五識增上業種，名五色根，非作因緣，生五識種。」其安惠等，復破彼言：「應五色根非無記故。」如是便有十二過失，亦廣如彼。然陳那等，即隨文解，更無異釋。其安惠等，釋此等文云：「種子功能名五根者，為破離識實有色等，於識所變似眼根等，以有發生五識用故，假名種子及色功能，非謂色根即識業種。」破經部等心外實色，由未建立有第八識，若不說種為眼等根，眼等便離六識而有，故說種子為眼等根。故今於此有二師釋，於中一一更別開義，如彼疏解。

Another [explanation] says that this is unreasonable. If the five material faculties were simply the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the seeds of the eighteen realms would become confused; thus there would be eleven faults, as extensively explained there. However, Master Dharmapāla, provisionally siding with Dignāga's position, further responded by saying: 'The seeds of karmic dominance capable of projecting the five consciousnesses are called the five material faculties; they are not the direct causal seeds that generate the five consciousnesses.' Sthiramati and others refuted him in turn, saying: 'Then the five material faculties would not be indeterminate (avyākṛta).' Thus there would be twelve faults, also extensively explained there. However, Dignāga and others simply explained according to the text, without any different interpretation. Sthiramati and others explain texts like this by saying: 'The reason why the functions of seeds are called the five faculties is to shatter the substantially real forms and so forth that are apart from consciousness. Upon what is transformed by consciousness resembling the eye faculty and so forth, because there is the function of generating the five consciousnesses, they are nominally called seeds and functions of form; it does not mean that the material faculties are simply the karmic seeds of consciousness.' To refute the external real forms of the Sautrāntikas and others, since the eighth consciousness had not yet been established, if seeds were not said to be the eye faculty and so forth, the eye and so forth would exist apart from the six consciousnesses; therefore, seeds were said to be the eye faculty and so forth. Thus here there are interpretations by two masters, and each unfolds distinct meanings, as explained in that commentary.