俱舍論 白話全本 · 冊1Abhidharmakośabhāṣya · Complete Vernacular · Vol. 1
序分·明諸法體Preface and the Nature of Dharmas
全文五層 →Full five layers →〔序1〕歸敬頌：禮讚佛德，標明造論
頌：一切種類的冥闇都已滅盡、把眾生從生死的泥沼裡拔出來的——向這樣一位「如理師」恭敬頂禮之後，我要來說這部《對法藏論》。
論：如今要造這部論，為了顯明自己的老師（佛）體性尊高、超出一切聖眾，所以先讚歎其德，再申致敬禮。頌中「諸」字所指的，就是佛世尊；祂能破除闇冥，所以稱為「冥滅」。說「一切種諸冥滅」，意思是：對一切境界上、一切品類的冥闇，都已滅盡。因為種種「無知」能覆蔽真實義、障礙真正的見，所以把它說為「冥」。唯有佛世尊得到永久的對治，對於一切境界、一切種類的冥闇，證得『永不再生』之法，所以稱為「滅」。聲聞、獨覺雖然也滅了種種冥闇，但他們只是把『染污的無知』畢竟斷盡，還算不上「一切種」都滅。為什麼呢？因為對於佛的法、對於極遙遠的時間處所、以及無邊差別的種種義類，他們『不染污的無知』還沒有斷除。以上讚歎世尊自利之德圓滿；接著當讚佛利他之德圓成。「拔眾生出生死泥」：生死是眾生沉溺之處，難以出離，所以用泥沼作比喻。眾生在其中淪沒而無人能救，世尊哀愍他們，隨其所應而授與教法，用正法之教如同伸手，把他們拔濟出來。讚完佛德，接著申致敬禮。「敬禮如是如理師」：以頭面接觸其足，所以稱為敬禮。具足前述自利、利他二德的，所以說「如是」。能如實、無顛倒地教授與誡勉，名為「如理師」。「如理師」一語顯的是利他之德——祂能以方便宣說如理的正教，把眾生從生死泥中拔出，而不是靠威力與願神通。禮敬如理師之後，要做什麼呢？「對法藏論我當說」：能教誡學徒，所以稱為「論」。這部論是什麼？就是「對法藏」。那麼什麼叫「對法」？頌說：
〔序2前半〕對法釋名：淨慧隨行
頌：清淨的慧連同它的隨行，名為「對法」；此外，能獲得這淨慧的諸慧與論，也名對法。
論：「慧」就是簡擇諸法（擇法）；「淨」就是無漏。淨慧的眷屬，稱為「隨行」。如此總說：無漏的五蘊名為「對法」——這是勝義的阿毘達磨。若說世俗的阿毘達磨，就是「能得此淨慧」的諸慧與論：「慧」指能引得無漏慧的有漏修慧、思慧、聞慧、生得慧及其隨行；「論」指能傳承引生無漏慧的教典。這些慧與論是那勝義對法的資糧，所以也得名阿毘達磨。解釋「法」這個名：能任持自體之相（自相），所以名為「法」。若論勝義之法，唯是涅槃；若論法相之法，則通於四聖諦。此〔淨慧〕能「對向」涅槃、或能「對觀」四諦，所以稱為「對法」。對法已解釋完。那為什麼這部論叫「對法藏」？頌說：
〔序2後半〕釋「藏」：攝彼勝義·依彼引生
頌：因為攝納了彼〔對法諸論〕的勝義、又依彼而造，所以這部論建立『對法俱舍〔藏〕』之名。
論：由於彼對法諸論中的勝義，都收入此論所攝，所以此論得「藏」之名。或者：此論依於彼、從彼引生，是彼所藏出的，所以也名為「藏」。因此這部論名為「對法藏」。那麼，是什麼原因要說那阿毘達磨？又是誰先說了阿毘達磨，而今造論恭敬地解釋它？頌說：
〔序3〕傳佛說對法：造論因緣
頌：若離開擇法，決定沒有其他能滅諸惑的殊勝方便；由於諸惑，世間漂流於三有之海——因此，傳說是佛陀說了對法。
論：若離開「擇法」（簡擇諸法之慧），就沒有別的殊勝方便能滅除諸煩惱。諸煩惱能令世間漂轉於生死大海，因此傳說佛陀說了那對法，就是要讓世間眾生得到擇法之慧。若無人宣說對法，弟子們便不能對諸法之相如理簡擇。而佛世尊是在諸經中處處散說阿毘達磨，由大德迦多衍尼子等諸大聲聞結集安置〔成論〕——就像大德法救所集的《無常品》等鄔拕南頌那樣。毘婆沙師是這樣傳說的。那麼，是什麼法是那〔擇法〕所要簡擇的對象，因此傳說佛說了對法呢？頌說：
〔正1–3〕有漏無漏總判；三無為
頌：一切法分有漏、無漏。除道諦以外的其餘有為法，諸漏於其中隨順增長，所以名為「有漏」。無漏，是道諦以及三種無為——即虛空與二滅。其中「空」以無礙為性；「擇滅」就是離繫，隨所繫縛之事各各別異；畢竟障礙未來法之當生的，是與擇滅不同的「非擇滅」。
論：一切法簡略說有二種：有漏、無漏。什麼是有漏法？除了道諦以外的其餘有為法。為什麼？因為諸漏（煩惱）在其中會『等隨增長』。若攀緣滅諦、道諦，諸漏雖然也會生起，卻不會隨順增長，所以滅道二諦不是有漏。「不隨增」的道理，隨眠品中自會顯說。有漏已辨明。什麼是無漏？就是道聖諦與三種無為。哪三種？虛空與二滅。二滅是什麼？擇滅與非擇滅。這虛空等三種無為以及道聖諦，名為無漏法。為什麼？因為諸漏在其中不會隨增。就簡略所說的三無為而言：虛空只以「無礙」為性——由於沒有障礙，色法得以在其中運行。擇滅以「離繫」為性——諸有漏法遠離繫縛、證得解脫，名為擇滅。「擇」就是簡擇，是慧的差別作用，各別簡擇四聖諦之故。由「擇」之力所得的滅，名為「擇滅」——就像牛所駕的車叫「牛車」，是省去了中間的字才這樣說的。一切有漏法共同一個擇滅嗎？不是。那怎樣？「隨繫事各別」：隨所繫縛之事有多少量，離繫之事也就同樣多。如果不是這樣，那麼在證得「見苦所斷煩惱」之滅時，就應當一併證得一切所斷煩惱之滅；果真如此，修其餘的對治就沒有用了。依什麼道理說「滅」沒有同類〔因〕？是依『滅自身沒有同類因、也不作他法的同類因』這層意義才這樣說，並不是說滅沒有同類。擇滅已說。非擇滅：永久障礙「當生」而得的滅——即能永久障礙未來法的生起。這種「得滅」與前面不同，名為非擇滅：得到它不是因為簡擇，只是由於「闕緣」。譬如眼與意專注於一個色境時，其餘的色、聲、香、味、觸等便謝落過去；攀緣那些境界的五識身等，就住在未來世畢竟不生——因為五識不能攀緣過去之境，緣不具足，所以得非擇滅。對於「法」與「二滅」的得，應作四句分別：或者於諸法只得擇滅——指有漏法中的過去法、現在法與（未來）當生之法；或者於諸法只得非擇滅——指畢竟不生的無漏有為法；或者於諸法俱得二滅——指那些畢竟不生的有漏法；或者於諸法二滅都不得——指無漏法中的過去法、現在法與（未來）當生之法。三種無為到此已說。前面說『除道諦外其餘有為法名有漏』，那什麼叫「有為」？頌說：
〔正4〕有為法：五蘊；其異名（世路·言依·有離·有事）
頌：又，一切有為法，就是色等五蘊；它也名「世路」、「言依」、「有離」、「有事」等。
論：色等五蘊，就是從色蘊到識蘊。這五法具足統攝一切有為——因為它們都是眾緣聚集所共同造作的。沒有任何一法是單一緣所生的。未來法〔雖尚未被造作〕也不妨稱有為，因為是同類之故——如同乳、如同薪〔未擠已名乳、未燒已名薪〕。這有為法也名「世路」，因為它是「已行正行當行」（過去、現在、未來三世所行歷）之性；或者說，因為它被無常所吞食。或名「言依」：「言」是語言，語言所依的，就是「名」與「義」俱起者〔名所詮之義〕。這樣的「言依」具足統攝一切有為諸法——若不這樣理解，就會違背《品類足論》所說；彼論說『言依為十八界所攝』。或名「有離」：「離」是永離，也就是涅槃；一切有為法皆有那可離〔可入涅槃〕之性。或名「有事」：因為有因——「事」是因的意思。毘婆沙師是這樣傳說的。如此等類，都是有為法的種種異名。在此所說的有為法之中——頌說：
〔正5〕有漏法之異名（取蘊·有諍·苦·集·世間·見處·三有）
頌：有漏法名「取蘊」，也說為「有諍」，以及「苦」「集」「世間」「見處」「三有」等。
論：這是要建立什麼？是說：立為「取蘊」的也名為「蘊」；但有些法只是蘊而非取蘊——即無漏的有為法。煩惱名為「取」。蘊從取而生，所以名取蘊——如「草穅火」（從草穅生的火）；或者蘊隸屬於取，所以名取蘊——如「帝王臣」（隸屬帝王的臣）；或者蘊能生取，所以名取蘊——如「花果樹」（能生花果的樹）。這有漏法也名「有諍」：煩惱名為「諍」，因為它觸動善品、損害自他，且「諍」於其中隨增，所以名有諍——道理如同「有漏」。也名為「苦」，因為違逆聖者之心。也名為「集」，因為能招感苦。也名「世間」，因為可毀壞、且有對治。也名「見處」，因為諸見住在其中隨增而眠伏。也名「三有」，因為它是三有之因、三有所依、為三有所攝。如此等類，是有漏法隨義而立的種種別名。如上所說，色等五蘊名有為法。那麼色蘊是什麼？頌說：
〔正6前半〕色蘊＝五根＋五境＋無表
頌：色，唯是五根、五境及無表。
論：所謂五根，就是眼、耳、鼻、舌、身根。所謂五境，就是眼等五根的境界——色、聲、香、味、所觸。「及無表」是說無表色。唯依這個範圍，建立「色蘊」之名。此中應先說五根之相。頌說：
〔正6後半〕五根＝彼識所依淨色
頌：那五境之識所依的清淨色，名為眼等五根。
論：「彼」指前面說的色等五境；「識」即色、聲、香、味、觸之識。彼識所依的五種淨色（清淨微妙之色），依其次第，應知就是眼等五根。如世尊說：『苾芻當知：眼是內處，以四大所造淨色為性。』如是廣說。或者，「彼」也可指前面所說的眼等五根，「識」即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識——彼識所依的五種淨色名眼等根，取「是眼等識所依止」之義。這樣便符順《品類足論》；如彼論說：『什麼是眼根？以眼識所依的淨色為性。』如是廣說。五根已說，接著說五境。頌說：
〔正7〕五境開列：色二十·聲八·味六·香四·觸十一
頌：色有二類、或開為二十種；聲唯有八種；味六種、香四種；觸以十一種為性。
論：說「色二」：一是顯色，二是形色。顯色有四：青、黃、赤、白；其餘顯色都是這四色的差別。形色有八：以「長」為首、「不正」為末〔長短方圓高下正不正〕。「或二十」：就這色處又可說為二十種——青、黃、赤、白、長、短、方、圓、高、下、正、不正、雲、煙、塵、霧、影、光、明、闇。有其他論師說：「空一顯色」是第二十一種。此中「正」指形狀平整；形狀不平整名為「不正」；地上水氣蒸騰稱為「霧」；日焰名「光」；月、星、火、藥、寶珠、電等的諸焰名「明」；障蔽光明生起、其中其餘的色仍可見的名「影」；與此相反為「闇」。其餘各色容易了解，如今不釋。有的色處有顯無形——如青、黃、赤、白、影、光、明、闇；有的色處有形無顯——如長等一分，屬身表業之性；有的色處有顯有形——即其餘諸色。有其他論師說：唯有光、明之色有顯無形；因為現見世間青等色處也有長短等〔形〕的緣故。〔問：〕一件事物如何能同時具有顯、形？〔答：〕因為在它上面兩者都可以被了知。此處說「有」，是「有智」（可知）之義，不是「有境」之義。〔難：〕若是這樣，身表之中也應有「顯」的認知了。色處已說，接著說聲處。聲唯八種：以「有執受大種為因」或「無執受大種為因」〔為二〕，加上「有情名」與「非有情名」的差別而成四，這四種又各有「可意」「不可意」的差別，合成八種。「有執受大種為因」的聲，指言語、手等所發的音聲；風、林、河等所發的音聲，名「無執受大種為因」。「有情名聲」指語表業；其餘的聲則是「非有情名」。有人說：有一種聲同時通於有執受與無執受大種為因，例如手與鼓等相合所生的聲。〔論主評：〕就像不允許同一個顯色極微由二組四大所造，聲也應當如此〔不應一聲二因〕。聲處已說，接著說味處。味有六種：甘、醋、鹹、辛、苦、淡的差別。味處已說，接著說香處。香有四種：好香、惡香、等香、不等香的差別。《本論》（《發智論》）中說香有三種：好香、惡香及平等香。香處已說，接著說觸處。觸有十一種：四大種、滑性、澀性、重性、輕性，及冷、飢、渴。其中大種後面會廣說。柔軟名「滑」；粗強為「澀」；可稱量名「重」；相反為「輕」；暖欲〔欲暖之因〕名「冷」；食欲〔之因〕名「飢」；飲欲〔之因〕名「渴」——這三者是在「因」上安立「果」之名，才這樣說。如有頌說：
〔引頌〕諸佛出現是樂，演說正法是樂，僧眾和合是樂，同修勇進是樂。〔此頌即於因立果名之例〕
色界之中沒有飢、渴之觸，但有其餘諸觸：那一界的衣服單件不可稱量，成聚則可稱量；冷與暖在那裡雖無損害之用，卻有饒益之用。傳說如此。此中已說多種色處。有時眼識緣「一事」而生——那時是各別了別；有時眼識緣「多事」而生——那時不作各別了別，例如遠望軍隊、山林、無量顯形色與珠寶聚等。應知耳等諸識也是如此。有其他論師說：身識最多緣五種觸而起——四大種加上滑等隨一。又有人說：最多可總緣全部十一觸而起。〔難：〕若這樣，五識就成了總緣諸境，應當是取「共相」之境而非「自相」之境了。〔答：〕約「處」的自相而言，許五識身取自相境，而非「事」的自相——這有什麼過失？如今應思擇：身、舌二根若兩境同時俱至，哪個識先起？隨境界強盛者，那個識先生；若境界均平，舌識先起——因為飲食能引持身體、令其相續之故。根、境及取境之相已說，無表色之相如今接著說。頌說：
〔正8〕無表色
頌：在散亂心、無心等位，隨流相續的淨與不淨、以大種所造為性的——由此說為「無表」。
論：「亂心」指與此〔無表〕相異之心；「無心」指入無想定及滅盡定；「等」字顯示也包括不亂之心與有心位。相似相續，說名「隨流」。善與不善，名「淨、不淨」。為了簡別「諸得」也是相似相續〔恐相混〕，所以又說「大種所造」。毘婆沙說：「造」是因義，指作為生等五種因。〔頌言「由此」〕是顯示建立名稱的原因，所以說「由此」。無表雖然像有表業一樣以色、業為性，卻不能表示出來令他人了知，所以名「無表」。說「說者顯此」是師宗之言〔師宗＝本宗，即薩婆多〕：略說之，表業以及定所生的善、不善之色，名為無表。既說無表是大種所造，大種是什麼？頌說：
〔正9〕四大種：界·業·性
頌：大種即四界——地、水、火、風；能成辦「持」等四業；以堅、濕、暖、動為性。
論：地、水、火、風能任持「自相」及「所造色」，所以名為「界」。這四界也名「大種」：因為它是一切其餘色法的所依，體性寬廣；或者因為在地等增盛的聚集中形相巨大；或者因為能起種種大的事用。這四大種能成辦什麼業？依其次第，能成辦持、攝、熟、長四業——地界能持、水界能攝、火界能熟、風界能長。「長」指增盛，或者流引〔延展〕。業用既然如此，自性又如何？依其次第，即以堅、濕、暖、動為性：地界堅性、水界濕性、火界暖性、風界動性。「動」是指能引大種及所造色相續生至其他方所，如吹動燈光一般，所以名為動。《品類足論》及契經說：『什麼是風界？謂輕等動性。』又說輕性是所造色。所以應當說：風界以「動」為自性，舉其業用以顯其體，所以也說「輕」。那麼〔世間說的〕地等是什麼？與「地界」等有別。頌說：
〔正10〕世間地水火風；「變壞故名色」之辯
頌：〔世間說的〕地，是顯色與形色，隨世間的想而立名；水、火也是如此；風則既指風界、也同樣〔隨世想立名〕。
論：〔世間說的〕地是顯色、形色，以色處為體，隨世間的想而假立此名——因為世間人互相指示「地」時，是以顯色、形色來指示的。水、火也是如此。「風」就是風界，因為世間是在「動」上安立風之名；或者如地等一樣隨世間想立名，風也有顯、形——所以頌說「亦爾」，如世間說「黑風」「團風」，這是用顯色、形色來表示風。為什麼這一蘊以無表為最後，而總說為「色」呢？因為「變壞」。如世尊說：『苾芻當知：由變壞故，名色取蘊。』誰能令它變壞？「謂手觸故即便變壞」，乃至廣說。變壞就是「可惱壞」之義，所以《義品》中這樣說：
〔引頌〕追求諸欲的人，常懷著希望；諸欲若不遂意，惱壞如中箭。
色又如何〔叫可惱壞〕？被欲所惱壞——因欲的擾惱而生變壞。有人說：以「變礙」故名為色。〔難：〕若這樣，極微應不名色，因為它無變礙。〔答：〕這一難不成立：沒有任何一個極微是各自單獨而住的，眾多極微聚集，變礙之義即成。〔難：〕過去、未來〔色〕應不名色。〔答：〕它們也「曾有、當有」變礙；且是同類之故——如已燒的薪〔仍名薪〕。〔難：〕諸無表色應不名色。〔答一〕有人解釋：表色有變礙，無表隨著它也受「色」名，譬如樹動則影也隨動。〔評：〕這個解釋不對，因為〔影動是變礙、無表〕無變礙；而且表滅之時無表應當也滅——如樹滅時影必隨滅〔而事實不然〕。〔答二〕有人解釋：所依的大種有變礙，所以無表業也得「色」名。〔難：〕若這樣，〔眼識等〕所依〔的根〕有變礙，眼識等五識也應名色了。〔答：〕這一難並不對等：無表依止大種而轉時，如影依樹、光依珠寶〔恆隨所依〕；眼等五識依眼等根時卻不是這樣，根只是助生之緣而已。〔評：〕但「影依樹光依寶」這種說法，並不符順毘婆沙義——彼宗主張影等顯色極微各自依止自己的四大種。就算容許影、光依止樹、寶，無表色也不同於那種依止：彼宗允許所依大種雖滅而無表色不隨滅。所以前面那句話還不足以解難。〔答三〕論主於是自出第二釋來通那難：眼識等五識的所依並不固定——有的有變礙（眼等根）、有的無變礙（等無間滅的意）；無表的所依則不是這樣〔一向是有變礙的大種〕。所以前面的責難確實不對等，「變礙名色」之理得以成立。頌說：
〔正11前半〕色蘊開為十處十界
頌：此〔色蘊〕中的根與境，即許立為十處、十界。
論：在前面所說的色蘊體性之中，就以根與境立為十處、十界：於「處」門立為十處——眼處、色處，廣說乃至身處、觸處；於「界」門立為十界——眼界、色界，廣說乃至身界、觸界。色蘊及其處界已說，接著說受等三蘊的處界安立。頌說：
〔正11後半–12〕受·想·行三蘊；法處法界
頌：受是「領納隨觸」；想以「取像」為體；此外其餘的〔心所與不相應行〕名為行蘊。這受、想、行三者，加上無表與無為，名為法處、法界。
論：受蘊有三：領納隨順於觸〔而起〕，即樂、苦、不苦不樂。這又可分別為六受身——眼觸所生受，乃至意觸所生受。想蘊以能取像為體，即能執取青黃、長短、男女、怨親、苦樂等相。這又分別為六想身，如受所說。除了前面的色、受、想與後面的識，其餘一切「行」名為行蘊。不過薄伽梵在契經中說「六思身」為行蘊，那是就最勝者而說。為什麼？「行」名造作，思是業之性，造作之義最強，所以最勝。所以佛說：能造作有漏有為的，名「行取蘊」。若不這樣〔把其餘心所與不相應行都攝入行蘊〕，其餘心所法及不相應行就不為蘊所攝，便應不屬苦諦、集諦，也就不可作為「應知、應斷」的對象了——如世尊說：「若於一法未達未知，我說不能作苦邊際」；「未斷」「未滅」也是這樣說。所以決定應當承認：除四蘊以外，其餘有為之行皆為行蘊所攝。就這裡所說的受、想、行三蘊，加上無表色與三種無為，這七法於「處」門立為法處，於「界」門立為法界。受等三蘊的處界已說，接著說識蘊及其處界安立。頌說：
〔正13〕識蘊：意處·七界
頌：識是「各各了別」；它就名為意處；並且應知〔於界門〕立為七界——六識加上由六識轉成的意〔界〕。
論：各各了別各自的境界、總取境之相，所以名識蘊。這又差別為六識身——眼識身乃至意識身。應知如此所說的識蘊，於「處」門立為意處，於「界」門立為七界：眼識界乃至意識界，再加上由此六識轉成的意界。這樣，此中所說的五蘊，就等於十二處與十八界：除無表以外的其餘色蘊即名十處、也名十界；受想行蘊、無表、無為總名法處、也名法界；應知識蘊即名意處、也名七界（六識界與意界）。〔問：〕識蘊不是只有六識身嗎？在此之外還說什麼「意界」？〔答：〕並沒有別的法——就在這六識之中。頌說：
〔正14前半〕意界＝六識無間滅
頌：就是這六識身，無間滅去，即為「意」。
論：這六識身無間滅去之後，能生後識，所以名意界——譬如同一人，對此是子、對彼即名父；又如同一物，對此是果、對彼即名種。〔問：〕若這樣，實際的界應該只有十七或只有十二——因為六識與意互相含攝。憑什麼建立十八界呢？頌說：
〔正14後半〕成第六依，故立十八
頌：為了成立第六識的所依，所以〔別立意界〕；如此應知界有十八。
論：如五識界各別有眼等五界為所依；第六意識沒有別的所依——為了成立這個所依，所以說意界。這樣，所依（六根）、能依（六識）、境界（六境）各六，合成十八界。〔問：〕若這樣，無學者最後一念之心應當不是意界，因為它無間滅後，後識不再生起。〔答：〕不是的——它已經安住於「意」之性了；後識不生，只是因為缺了其餘的緣。此中，「蘊」統攝一切有為；「取蘊」唯攝一切有漏；「處」「界」總攝一切法盡。各別的統攝如此，總攝又如何？頌說：
〔正15〕一蘊一處一界總攝一切法
頌：以一蘊（色蘊）、一處（意處）、一界（法界），總攝一切法；所攝的是自性、不是其他，因為法恆離他性。
論：由一個色蘊、一個意處、一個法界，應知就總攝一切法盡。這是就諸處的「勝義」而說：唯攝自性、不攝他性。為什麼？法與他性恆常相離。與彼相離卻說「攝彼」，道理上說不通。譬如眼根：唯攝於色蘊、眼處、眼界、苦諦、集諦等——因為那是它的自性；不攝其餘的蘊、其餘的處界等——因為與彼性相離。若就諸處的「世俗」而說，應知也可以用其他的法攝其他——如以四攝事攝受徒眾等。〔問：〕眼、耳、鼻三處各有兩個〔左右眼、左右耳、兩鼻孔〕，為什麼界的體不是二十一？〔答：〕這一難沒有道理。為什麼？頌說：
〔正16前半〕類·境·識同，故二而體一
頌：種類、境界、識三者相同，所以〔眼等〕雖有二處，界體是一。
論：「類同」：兩處同樣是眼的自性。「境同」：兩處同樣以色為境。「識同」：兩處同樣作眼識的所依。由此，眼界雖有二處而體是一。耳、鼻也應如此安立。〔問：〕若這樣，為什麼要生成兩處呢？頌說：
〔正16後半〕生二為端嚴
頌：然而為了令〔身相〕端嚴，眼等各生兩處。
論：為了所依身相端嚴，界體雖一而生於兩處——若眼、耳二根各唯生於一處，鼻子沒有兩孔，身便不端嚴。〔評：〕這個解釋不對：如果本來就長那樣，誰會說它醜陋？而且貓、鴟等〔眼耳〕雖生二處，有什麼端嚴可言？〔正解：〕那麼三根為何生二？為了『所發之識明了端嚴』——現見世間閉上一眼等，了別色等便不分明。所以三根各生二處。諸蘊及處界之「攝」已說，接著說其字義。蘊、處、界各別的字義為何？頌說：
〔正17前半〕蘊處界字義：聚·生門·種族
頌：「聚」「生門」「種族」，就是蘊、處、界的字義。
論：諸有為法「和合聚」之義是蘊義。如契經說：『諸所有色，若過去、若未來、若現在，若內、若外，若麁、若細，若劣、若勝，若遠、若近——如是一切略為一聚，說名色蘊。』由這「聚」義，蘊義得以成立。在這部經裡：無常已滅名過去、尚未已生名未來、已生未謝名現在；自身名內、其餘名外；或者約「處」來辨——有對名麁、無對名細；或者是相待而立。〔難：〕若說相待，麁細便不能成立〔同一法對此為麁對彼為細〕。〔答：〕這一難不對，因為所待不同：待彼為麁者未嘗〔對同一所待〕為細、待彼為細者未嘗為麁——猶如父子、苦集諦等〔一身二名而不相違〕。染污名劣、不染名勝；去、來名遠，現在名近。乃至識蘊，應知也是這樣，但有一點差別：依五根的名麁、唯依意根的名細；或者約「地」來辨。毘婆沙師所說如此。大德法救又這樣說：五根所取的名麁色，其餘名細色；不可意的名劣色，其餘名勝色；在不可見處的名遠色、在可見處的名近色；過去等色如其名稱自顯〔過去色即遠、現在色即近之類〕。受等也是如此，隨其所依之力，遠近麁細應知同前。心心所法的「生長門」之義是處義。以詞源訓釋：能生長心心所法，所以名為「處」——是「能生長彼作用」的意思。法的「種族」之義是界義：如一座山中有多種銅、鐵、金、銀等礦族，說名「多界」；同樣，一身或一相續之中，有十八類諸法的種族，名十八界。這裡「種族」是「生本」（所從生的本源）之義。那麼眼等以什麼為生本？以自身種類的同類因。〔難：〕若這樣，無為應不名「界」〔無為無同類因〕。〔答：〕〔無為是〕心心所法之生本〔所緣緣義〕。有人說：「界」聲表「種類」義——十八法的種類自性各別不同，名十八界。〔難：〕若說「聚」義是蘊義，蘊就應當是假有——因為它是多個實物積集所共成，如「聚」、如「我」。〔答：〕這一難不對：一個實極微也名蘊。〔難：〕若這樣，就不應說聚義是蘊義——單一實物沒有「聚」義。〔又〕有人說：「能荷重擔」之義是蘊義——所以世間把肩叫做蘊，因為是眾物所聚之處。又有人說：「可分段」之義是蘊義——所以世人說「汝三蘊還，我當與汝」〔分三期償還〕。〔評：〕這種解釋違越經文——經說「聚」義是蘊義，如契經言「諸所有色若過去等」，廣說如前。若說這部經是顯示過去等一一色各別名蘊、因此一切過去色等一一實物各各名蘊——這種執取沒有道理，因為彼經說『如是一切略為一聚，說名蘊』。所以如同「聚」一樣，蘊決定是假有。〔難：〕若這樣，就應當承認諸有色處也是假有——眼等極微要多所積聚才成「生門」。〔答：〕這一難沒有道理：在多所積聚之中，一一極微各有「因」的作用〔各自為生識之緣〕。若不是這樣，根、境相助共生識等就不成其為各別之處，那便沒有十二處的分別了。而毘婆沙是這樣說的：對法諸師若觀待「假蘊」，他們就說極微是一界、一處、一蘊之「少分」；若不觀待，他們就說極微即是一界、一處、一蘊。〔評：〕這應該說「於分」——「假」是指「有分」〔全體〕，如燒了一小片衣也說「燒衣」。世尊為什麼對所知之境，用蘊、處、界三種門來說？頌說：
〔正17後半〕愚·根·樂三故，說三門
頌：因為愚、根、樂各有三種，所以說蘊、處、界三門。
論：所化的有情有三品，所以世尊為說蘊等三門。傳說：有情之「愚」有三種——或愚於心所而總執為我、或唯愚於色、或愚於色心二者；「根」也有三——利、中、鈍；「樂」也有三種——樂略文、樂中文、樂廣文。依其次第，世尊為之說蘊、處、界三門〔愚心所者說蘊、愚色者說處、愚色心者說界；利根樂略者蘊、中者處、鈍根樂廣者界〕。世尊為什麼把其餘心所總置於行蘊，卻把受、想別分為二蘊呢？頌說：
〔正18〕受想別立為蘊之故
頌：因為是諍論之根、生死之因，以及次第之因，所以於諸心所法中，受、想別立為蘊。
論：諍根有二：貪著諸欲與貪著諸見。受與想依次是這二者的最勝因：由味著「受」之力而貪著諸欲，由顛倒「想」之力而貪著諸見。又，生死之法以受及想為最勝因：由耽著受而起顛倒想，因此生死輪迴。由這二因，以及後面將說的「次第因」，應知受、想別立為蘊。次第之因，接下來就會辨明。為什麼無為說在處、界之中，卻不為蘊所攝？頌說：
〔正19前半〕蘊不攝無為
頌：蘊不攝無為，因為義不相應。
論：三種無為法不可說在色等蘊中，因為與色等之義不相應——其體非色乃至非識〔不入五蘊任何一蘊〕；也不可說為「第六蘊」，因為與「蘊」義不相應：「聚」義是蘊，如前面詳說；而無為法不像色等有過去等品類差別、可以「略為一聚」名無為蘊。再者，說「取蘊」是為了顯示「染」之所依，「蘊」一語則顯示染、淨二依；無為於此二義都沾不上，義不相應，所以不立為蘊。有人說：如瓶破了就不是瓶，蘊息滅了就應不是蘊〔故無為不立蘊〕。〔評：〕照他這說法，在處、界上就應同樣成過失〔處界攝無為、豈處界息滅耶〕。諸蘊的立與不立已說，接著說次第。頌說：
〔正19後半〕五蘊次第之因
頌：隨「麁」、隨「染」、隨「器等」、隨「界別」，而立〔五蘊〕次第。
論：色有對礙，所以在諸蘊中最麁。無色四蘊中，最麁的唯是「受」的行相——所以世人說『我手痛』『我腳痛』這類話。相對於後二者，「想」為麁——男女等想容易了知。「行」比識麁——貪、瞋等行容易了知。「識」最為細——總取境相、難以分別。由此「隨麁」建立五蘊次第。或者：從無始生死以來，男女於「色」互相愛樂，這是由於耽著樂「受」之味；耽受又因顛倒「想」而生；此倒想之生由於煩惱（「行」）；而這些煩惱都依「識」而生。此〔行〕與前三〔色、受、想〕都能染污識〔故識殿於最後〕——由此「隨染」建立五蘊次第。或者：色如器皿、受類飲食、想同助味之料、行似廚師、識喻食者——所以「隨器等」建立五蘊次第。或者「隨界別」建立五蘊次第：欲界中有種種妙欲，「色」相顯了；色界諸靜慮有殊勝的喜等，「受」相顯了；三無色〔前三無色定〕取空等之相，「想」相顯了；第一有（非想非非想處）中「思」最為勝，「行」相顯了。而這些就是「識住」——識住其中，恰似世間「田」與「種子」的次第。所以諸蘊次第如此。由此，五蘊沒有增、減的過失；也就由這些次第之因，把受、想從行中別立為二蘊——受與想在諸行之中相最麁、生染最切、類同飲食與助味、於二界〔欲界色界〕中最強，所以別立為蘊。處、界門中應先辨說六根的次第，由此境與識的次第便可類知。頌說：
〔正20〕六根次第
頌：前五根之境唯是現在，〔前〕四根之境唯是所造色；其餘〔的先後〕依作用之遠、速、明，或者隨所依處的上下次第。
論：六根之中，眼等前五唯取現在之境，所以先說〔於意根之前〕。意根之境不定：三世及無為，或唯取一、或取二、三、四。所說「四境唯所造」：承前而來——五根中前四根之境唯是所造色，所以先說〔於身根之前〕。身根之境不定：或取大種、或取造色、或二者俱取。「餘」指前四根，如其所應，以作用之遠、速、明而先說：眼、耳二根取遠境，所以在〔鼻舌〕二根之前說；二者之中眼的作用更遠，所以先說——遠見山河而不聞其聲；又眼的作用快速——先遠遠見人撞擊鐘鼓、後方聞聲。鼻、舌兩根作用都不及遠；先說鼻，是由於速與明——如面對香美飲食時，鼻先嗅香、舌後嚐味。或者，隨身中所依之處的上下差別來說根的次第：眼所依最居其上，其次耳、鼻、舌；身〔根所依〕多居其下；意無方所處，且有就依止諸根而生的，所以最後說。為什麼十處都是色蘊所攝，卻唯於其中一種立「色處」之名？又十二處之體都是法，卻唯於一種立「法處」之名？頌說：
〔正21〕色處·法處獨得通名之故
頌：為了差別、以及最勝，〔又法處〕攝眾多法與增上法，所以一處名「色」、一處名「法」。
論：「為差別」：為了讓人了知境與有境之性有種種差別，所以在色蘊上就差別相建立十處，不總為一處。若〔其餘九處〕沒有眼等差別的想名，而體是色、就立名色處，那麼這一處既被眼等之名所簡別，雖標的是總稱，實際就成了別名。又，諸色之中色處最勝，所以〔於它〕立通名：因為它「有對」——手等一觸即便變壞；又「有見」——可以指示在此在彼的差別；又世間唯於此處共說為「色」，不在眼等上說。又，為了差別，也只在一處立「法」名，不在一切處，道理如色處應知。又因為此〔法處〕中攝受、想等眾多法，應立通名；又「增上法」即涅槃在此處所攝，所以獨立名「法」。有其他論師說：色處中有二十種色，最為麁顯，又是肉眼、天眼、聖慧眼三眼之境，所以獨立「色」名；法處中有諸法之「名」、又有「法智」〔緣它而起〕，所以獨立「法」名。諸契經中還有其餘種種蘊、處、界的名想可得——是就攝在此〔蘊處界〕中，還是在此之外？彼皆攝在此中，如其相應當知。先辨『攝其餘諸蘊』的名想。頌說：
〔正22〕八萬法蘊之體
頌：牟尼所說的法蘊，數有八十千（八萬）；其體是「語」或是「名」，於此〔五蘊〕為色蘊或行蘊所攝。
論：主張佛教以「語」為體的諸師，說法蘊皆色蘊攝〔語是聲、聲是色〕；主張佛教以「名」為體的諸師，說法蘊皆行蘊攝〔名是不相應行〕。這些法蘊，每一蘊的量有多大？頌說：
〔正23〕法蘊之量
頌：有人說：每一法蘊之量如彼《法蘊足論》所說；或者隨蘊等教門而言〔一門一法蘊〕；如實而言，是對治〔八萬〕行的。
論：有諸師說：八萬法蘊，一一的量等同《法蘊足論》——即彼〔八萬法蘊〕一一各有六千頌〔《法蘊足論》全帙之量〕，如對法中《法蘊足》所說。或有人說：法蘊是隨蘊等言教一一差別而數有八萬——蘊、處、界、緣起、諦、食、靜慮、無量、無色、解脫、勝處、遍處、覺品、神通、無諍、願智、無礙解等，一一教門名一法蘊。如實說者：所化有情有貪、瞋等八萬種行的差別，為對治這八萬行，世尊宣說八萬法蘊。而如彼所說的八萬法蘊，皆為此五蘊中〔色、行〕二蘊所攝。同理，其餘經中的諸蘊、處、界，也應如此〔攝入〕。頌說：
〔正24〕餘蘊處界隨應攝入
頌：如是其餘的蘊等，各隨其所應，攝在前面所說之中；應審細觀察各自的自相。
論：其餘契經中的諸蘊、處、界，隨其相應攝在前面所說之中；對這部論中所說的蘊等，應審細觀察它們一一的自相。且如諸經中說另外五蘊——戒、定、慧、解脫、解脫智見五蘊：其中戒蘊為此色蘊所攝，其餘四蘊為此行蘊所攝。又諸經說十遍處等：前八遍處以無貪為性，為此法處所攝；若連同助伴，則是五蘊之性，即為此意處、法處所攝。攝八勝處，應知也是如此。空、識二遍處與空無邊等四無色處，是四蘊之性，即為此意處、法處所攝。五解脫處以慧為性，為此法處所攝；若連同助伴，即為此聲、意、法三處所攝。又有二處——無想有情天處與非想非非想處：前者為此十處所攝（因為沒有香、味）；後者為此意、法二處所攝（是四蘊之性）。又《多界經》說界的差別有六十二，隨其所應，當知皆為此十八界所攝。且彼經中所說的六界：地、水、火、風四界已說；空、識二界尚未說其相——是不是虛空就名空界、一切識都名識界呢？不是。那是怎樣？頌說：
〔正25〕空界與識界
頌：空界指竅隙，傳說即是明與闇；識界是有漏識，是有情「生」之所依。
論：門、窗及口、鼻等內外的竅隙，名為空界。這些竅隙如何了知？傳說：竅隙就是明與闇——離了明闇，竅隙不可得，所以說空界以明闇為體。應知此體不離晝夜。這也就名「隣阿伽色」。傳說：「阿伽」指積集之色——極能為礙，所以名阿伽〔礙〕；這空界之色與彼相隣，所以名隣阿伽色。有人說：阿伽就是空界色——此中「無礙」所以名阿伽〔無礙〕；而與這阿伽色相隣的是其餘有礙之色，所以名隣阿伽色。諸有漏識名為識界。為什麼不說諸無漏識為識界？因為承認『六界是諸有情『生』之所依』——這六界從續生心（結生那一念）到命終心，恆常執持「生」；諸無漏法就不是這樣。那六界之中：前四界（地水火風）即為此〔十八界的〕觸界所攝；第五（空界）即為此色界所攝；第六（識界）即為此七心界所攝。彼經其餘諸界，如其所應，皆為此中十八界所攝。
〔Preface 1〕The Stanza of Homage: Praise of the Buddha’s Virtues, and the Announcement of the Treatise
Stanza: To him in whom darkness of every kind has been wholly extinguished, who draws living beings out of the mire of birth and death—after bowing in homage to such a teacher of things as they are, I shall expound this Treatise on the Treasury of Abhidharma.
Treatise: This treatise is now to be composed; in order to make manifest that his own teacher, the Buddha, is exalted in his very being and surpasses the whole assembly of noble ones, the author first praises his virtues and then offers homage. What the word him in the stanza points to is the Buddha, the World-Honored One; because he can break through darkness, he is spoken of as one in whom darkness is extinguished. To say that darkness of every kind has been extinguished means this: with respect to every object and every class, the darkness has been wholly extinguished. Because the various forms of not-knowing can cover over the true meaning and obstruct genuine seeing, they are spoken of as darkness. Only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has obtained the permanent counteragent; with respect to darkness of every object and every kind he has realized the dharma of never arising again, and therefore the word extinguished is used. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas also extinguish various forms of darkness, but they only bring defiled not-knowing to a final end, which still does not amount to extinguishing it in every kind. Why? Because with respect to the Buddha’s dharmas, to times and places extremely remote, and to the boundlessly differentiated classes of meaning, their undefiled not-knowing has not yet been cut off. Thus far the fullness of the World-Honored One’s virtue of benefiting himself has been praised; next the perfection of the Buddha’s virtue of benefiting others is to be praised. Who draws living beings out of the mire of birth and death: birth and death are where living beings are submerged and from which it is hard to get out, and so a mire is used as the figure. Beings founder in it and no one can rescue them; the World-Honored One, pitying them, bestows the teaching according to what each requires, and with the teaching of the true dharma as with an outstretched hand draws them up and rescues them. The praise of the Buddha’s virtues being finished, homage is now offered. I bow in homage to such a teacher of things as they are: because one’s head and face touch his feet, it is called bowing in homage. Because he possesses in full the two virtues just stated, of benefiting himself and benefiting others, the word such is used. Because he teaches and admonishes in accordance with reality and without distortion, he is named a teacher of things as they are. This expression displays the virtue of benefiting others: he can, by skillful means, proclaim the true teaching that accords with reality and draw living beings out of the mire of birth and death—not by force of might or by the supernormal power of vows. Having bowed in homage to the teacher of things as they are, what is to be done? I shall expound the Treatise on the Treasury of Abhidharma: because it can teach and admonish students, it is called a treatise. And what is this treatise? It is the Treasury of Abhidharma. Then what is Abhidharma? The stanza says:
〔Preface 2, first half〕The Name Abhidharma Explained: Pure Discernment Together with Its Accompaniments
Stanza: Pure discernment together with its accompaniments is called Abhidharma; and further, the forms of discernment and the treatises by which this pure discernment can be obtained are also called Abhidharma.
Treatise: Discernment is the discerning of dharmas; pure means without outflows. The retinue of pure discernment is called its accompaniments. Stated comprehensively in this way, the five aggregates without outflows are called Abhidharma—this is Abhidharma in the ultimate sense. As for Abhidharma in the conventional sense, it is the forms of discernment and the treatises by which this pure discernment can be obtained: discernment here means the discernment born of cultivation, born of reflection, born of hearing, and innately acquired, all of them with outflows, together with their accompaniments, which are able to draw forth discernment without outflows; treatises means the scriptural teachings that transmit and give rise to discernment without outflows. These forms of discernment and these treatises are the provisions for that Abhidharma in the ultimate sense, and therefore they too receive the name Abhidharma. The name dharma is explained thus: because it can maintain the mark of its own entity, its intrinsic mark, it is called a dharma. If one speaks of dharma in the ultimate sense, it is nirvāṇa alone; if one speaks of dharma as a defining characteristic, it extends to the Four Noble Truths. This 〔pure discernment〕 can face toward nirvāṇa, or can directly observe the Four Truths, and therefore it is called Abhidharma, direct engagement with dharmas. Abhidharma has now been explained. Why, then, is this treatise called the Treasury of Abhidharma? The stanza says:
〔Preface 2, second half〕The Word Treasury Explained: It Gathers In Their Ultimate Meaning and Arises in Dependence on Them
Stanza: Because it gathers in the ultimate meaning of those 〔treatises of Abhidharma〕 and was composed in dependence upon them, this treatise is given the name kośa, Treasury 〔of Abhidharma〕.
Treatise: Since the ultimate meaning contained in those treatises of Abhidharma is all gathered into what this treatise contains, this treatise obtains the name Treasury. Or else: this treatise depends upon them, arises from them, and is what they store up, and so it too is named Treasury. For this reason the treatise is called the Treasury of Abhidharma. Then for what reason is that Abhidharma to be expounded? And who first spoke the Abhidharma, that a treatise should now be composed to explain it with reverence? The stanza says:
〔Preface 3〕It Is Transmitted That the Buddha Spoke the Abhidharma: The Occasion of the Treatise
Stanza: Apart from the discernment of dharmas there is certainly no other excellent means for extinguishing the defilements; and it is because of the defilements that the world drifts on the ocean of the three existences—therefore it is transmitted that the Buddha spoke the Abhidharma.
Treatise: Apart from the discernment of dharmas—the discernment that discerns dharmas—there is no other excellent means able to extinguish the afflictions. The afflictions cause the world to drift and revolve in the great ocean of birth and death, and therefore it is transmitted that the Buddha spoke that Abhidharma, precisely in order that the beings of the world should obtain the discernment that discerns dharmas. If no one expounded the Abhidharma, disciples would be unable to discern the marks of dharmas in accordance with reality. And the Buddha, the World-Honored One, spoke the Abhidharma dispersed here and there throughout the sūtras, and the venerable Kātyāyanīputra and other great śrāvakas compiled and arranged it 〔into a treatise〕—just as the venerable Dharmatrāta collected the Udāna stanzas such as the Chapter on Impermanence. This is what the Vaibhāṣikas transmit. Then what dharmas are those that are to be discerned by that 〔discernment〕, on account of which it is transmitted that the Buddha spoke the Abhidharma? The stanza says:
〔Principal 1–3〕The Comprehensive Division into With and Without Outflows; the Three Unconditioned Dharmas
Stanza: All dharmas are either with outflows or without outflows. The conditioned dharmas other than the truth of the path are those in which the outflows increase by attachment, and so they are called with outflows. Without outflows are the truth of the path and the three unconditioned dharmas—namely space and the two cessations. Among these, space has non-obstruction as its nature; cessation through discernment is separation from bonds, and it differs according to each thing bound; and what definitively obstructs a future dharma from arising is cessation independent of discernment, which is other than cessation through discernment.
Treatise: All dharmas, stated briefly, are of two kinds: with outflows and without outflows. What are the dharmas with outflows? The conditioned dharmas other than the truth of the path. Why? Because the outflows increase therein equally by attachment. If the truths of cessation and of the path are taken as objects, the outflows may indeed arise, but they do not increase by attachment, and so the two truths of cessation and path are not with outflows. The principle of not increasing by attachment will be set out in the chapter on the latent tendencies. Dharmas with outflows have now been distinguished. What is without outflows? The noble truth of the path and the three unconditioned dharmas. Which three? Space and the two cessations. And what are the two cessations? Cessation through discernment and cessation independent of discernment. These three unconditioned dharmas beginning with space, together with the noble truth of the path, are named dharmas without outflows. Why? Because the outflows do not increase by attachment therein. As for the three unconditioned dharmas just stated in brief: space has only non-obstruction as its nature—because there is no obstruction, form can move within it. Cessation through discernment has separation from bonds as its nature—when dharmas with outflows are separated from their bonds and liberation is realized, that is called cessation through discernment. Discernment means discerning, a particular function of discernment itself, since it discerns each of the Four Noble Truths separately. The cessation obtained by the power of discernment is called cessation through discernment—just as a cart drawn by an ox is called an ox-cart, the middle word being dropped in speaking this way. Do all dharmas with outflows share a single cessation through discernment? No. Then how is it? It differs according to each thing bound: as many as are the things bound, just so many are the things separated from bonds. Were it not so, then at the time of realizing the cessation of the afflictions abandoned by seeing suffering one ought to realize at once the cessation of all the afflictions to be abandoned; and if that were so, cultivating the remaining counteragents would serve no purpose. On what principle is it said that cessation has no homogeneous 〔cause〕? It is said in the sense that cessation itself has no homogeneous cause and does not act as the homogeneous cause of any other dharma; it is not said that cessation has no homogeneous kind. Cessation through discernment has now been stated. Cessation independent of discernment: the cessation obtained by permanently obstructing what would arise—that is, it can permanently obstruct the arising of a future dharma. This obtaining of a cessation differs from the former and is named cessation independent of discernment: it is obtained not through discerning, but merely through the absence of a condition. For instance, when eye and mind are fixed upon a single form-object, the remaining forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles and the rest fall away into the past; the five bodies of consciousness and the rest that would have taken those objects thereupon abide in the future world and definitively do not arise—because the five consciousnesses cannot take past objects, and, the conditions not being complete, cessation independent of discernment is obtained. Concerning dharmas and the obtaining of the two cessations, a fourfold distinction should be made: either only cessation through discernment is obtained with respect to dharmas—this refers to past, present, and arising (future) dharmas among those with outflows; or only cessation independent of discernment is obtained with respect to dharmas—this refers to conditioned dharmas without outflows that definitively will not arise; or both cessations are obtained with respect to dharmas—this refers to those dharmas with outflows that will definitively not arise; or neither cessation is obtained with respect to dharmas—this refers to past, present, and arising (future) dharmas among those without outflows. The three unconditioned dharmas have now been stated. It was said above that conditioned dharmas other than the truth of the path are called with outflows; then what is meant by conditioned? The stanza says:
〔Principal 4〕Conditioned Dharmas: The Five Aggregates, and Their Alternative Names (World-Path · Basis of Speech · Possessed of Separation · Possessed of a Ground)
Stanza: Again, all conditioned dharmas are the five aggregates beginning with form; they are also named world-path, basis of speech, possessed of separation, possessed of a ground, and so forth.
Treatise: The five aggregates beginning with form are the aggregate of form through the aggregate of consciousness. These five dharmas comprehensively include everything conditioned—for they are all made together by an assemblage of many conditions. There is no dharma whatever that is produced by a single condition. Future dharmas 〔though not yet made〕 may still be called conditioned, since they are of the same kind—like milk, like firewood 〔what has not yet been drawn is already called milk, what has not yet been burned is already called firewood〕. These conditioned dharmas are also named world-path, because they have the nature of what has been traversed, is being traversed, and will be traversed (the courses of the three times, past, present, and future); or else because they are devoured by impermanence. They are also named basis of speech: speech means language, and what language rests upon is the name together with the meaning that arises with it 〔the meaning that the name expresses〕. A basis of speech in this sense comprehensively includes all conditioned dharmas—for if it were not understood so, it would contradict what the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas says; that treatise says that the basis of speech is included in the eighteen elements. They are also named possessed of separation: separation is permanent separation, that is, nirvāṇa; all conditioned dharmas have that capacity for separation 〔that possibility of entering nirvāṇa〕. They are also named possessed of a ground: because they have a cause—ground here has the sense of cause. This is what the Vaibhāṣikas transmit. Such are the various alternative names of conditioned dharmas. Among the conditioned dharmas here stated—the stanza says:
〔Principal 5〕The Alternative Names of Dharmas with Outflows (Aggregate of Appropriation · Possessed of Dispute · Suffering · Origin · World · Basis of Views · The Three Existences)
Stanza: Dharmas with outflows are named aggregates of appropriation; they are also spoken of as possessed of dispute, and as suffering, origin, world, basis of views, the three existences, and so forth.
Treatise: What is being established here? It is this: what is set up as an aggregate of appropriation is also named an aggregate; but some dharmas are only aggregates and not aggregates of appropriation—namely the conditioned dharmas without outflows. Affliction is named appropriation. Aggregates arise from appropriation and are therefore named aggregates of appropriation—as with a fire of grass and chaff (a fire arising from grass and chaff); or aggregates belong to appropriation and are therefore named aggregates of appropriation—as with the ministers of an emperor (ministers belonging to an emperor); or aggregates can produce appropriation and are therefore named aggregates of appropriation—as with a tree of flowers and fruit (a tree that can produce flowers and fruit). These dharmas with outflows are also named possessed of dispute: affliction is named dispute, because it agitates the wholesome and injures both self and others, and because dispute increases by attachment therein, they are named possessed of dispute—on the same principle as with outflows. They are also named suffering, because they run counter to the mind of the noble ones. They are also named origin, because they can bring on suffering. They are also named world, because they can be destroyed and because they have a counteragent. They are also named basis of views, because the views dwell within them, increasing by attachment and lying latent. They are also named the three existences, because they are the cause of the three existences, the support of the three existences, and are included in the three existences. Such are the various distinct names established for dharmas with outflows according to their meanings. As stated above, the five aggregates beginning with form are conditioned dharmas. What, then, is the aggregate of form? The stanza says:
〔Principal 6, first half〕The Aggregate of Form = Five Faculties + Five Objects + Nonmanifest Form
Stanza: Form is only the five faculties, the five objects, and nonmanifest form.
Treatise: The five faculties are the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. The five objects are the objects of those five faculties beginning with the eye—form, sound, odor, taste, and the tangible. And nonmanifest form means nonmanifest form. Upon this measure alone is the name aggregate of form established. Here the marks of the five faculties should be stated first. The stanza says:
〔Principal 6, second half〕The Five Faculties = the Subtle Form upon Which Those Consciousnesses Depend
Stanza: The subtle form upon which the consciousnesses of those five objects depend is named the five faculties beginning with the eye.
Treatise: Those refers to the five objects beginning with form stated above; consciousness means the consciousnesses of form, sound, odor, taste, and the tangible. The five kinds of subtle form (form that is pure and refined) upon which those consciousnesses depend should be known, in their order, to be the five faculties beginning with the eye. As the World-Honored One said: ‘Bhikṣus, know that the eye is an inner sense field, having as its nature subtle form derived from the four great elements.’ Thus it is expounded at length. Alternatively, those may also refer to the five faculties beginning with the eye stated above, and consciousness to the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses—the five kinds of subtle form upon which those consciousnesses depend are named the faculties beginning with the eye, taking the sense of that upon which the consciousnesses beginning with the eye depend. This then accords with the Treatise on Categories of Dharmas; as that treatise says: ‘What is the eye faculty? It has as its nature the subtle form upon which eye consciousness depends.’ Thus it is expounded at length. The five faculties having been stated, the five objects are stated next. The stanza says:
〔Principal 7〕The Five Objects Enumerated: Form Twenty · Sound Eight · Taste Six · Odor Four · Tangible Eleven
Stanza: Form is of two kinds, or is opened out into twenty; sound has only eight kinds; taste has six kinds and odor four; the tangible has eleven kinds as its nature.
Treatise: To say form is of two kinds: the first is color, the second is shape. There are four colors: blue, yellow, red, and white; all other colors are differentiations of these four. There are eight shapes: beginning with long and ending with unshapely 〔long, short, square, round, high, low, shapely, unshapely〕. Or twenty: with respect to this sense field of form, twenty kinds may also be spoken of—blue, yellow, red, white, long, short, square, round, high, low, shapely, unshapely, cloud, smoke, dust, mist, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. Some other masters say that the single color of open sky is a twenty-first. Here shapely means even in configuration; a configuration that is uneven is named unshapely; the vapor of water rising from the ground is called mist; the blaze of the sun is named light; the blazes of moon, stars, fire, medicinal herbs, jewels, lightning and the like are named brightness; what arises when brightness is blocked, while the other forms within it remain visible, is named shadow; the opposite of this is darkness. The remaining colors are easily understood and are not explained here. Some sense fields of form have color but no shape—such as blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness; some have shape but no color—such as one portion of long and the rest, which have the nature of bodily manifest action; some have both color and shape—namely the remaining forms. Some other masters say that only the forms of light and brightness have color without shape, since it is directly observed that in the world the sense fields of form such as blue and the rest also have length, shortness, and the other 〔shapes〕. 〔Question:〕 How can a single thing possess both color and shape at once? 〔Answer:〕 Because both can be cognized in it. Here possess has the sense of being cognizable, not the sense of possessing an object. 〔Objection:〕 If that is so, then within bodily manifest action there ought also to be a cognition of color. The sense field of form having been stated, the sense field of sound is stated next. Sound has only eight kinds: having appropriated great elements as cause, or having unappropriated great elements as cause 〔these making two〕, then adding the distinction between what is designated as sentient and what is not designated as sentient to make four, and each of these four having in turn the distinction of agreeable and disagreeable, they come to eight. Sound having appropriated great elements as its cause refers to the sounds produced by speech, by the hands, and so on; the sounds produced by wind, forest, river and the like are named as having unappropriated great elements as their cause. Sound designated as sentient refers to vocal manifest action; the remaining sounds are not designated as sentient. Some say: there is a kind of sound that has both appropriated and unappropriated great elements as its cause at once, for example the sound produced when hand and drum come together. 〔The author’s assessment:〕 Just as one does not allow a single ultimate atom of color to be derived from two sets of four great elements, so it should be with sound as well 〔one sound should not have two causes〕. The sense field of sound having been stated, the sense field of taste is stated next. Taste has six kinds: the distinctions of sweet, sour, salty, pungent, bitter, and bland. The sense field of taste having been stated, the sense field of odor is stated next. Odor has four kinds: the distinctions of good odor, bad odor, even odor, and uneven odor. In the Root Treatise (the Treatise on the Development of Wisdom) it is said that odor has three kinds: good odor, bad odor, and equal odor. The sense field of odor having been stated, the sense field of the tangible is stated next. The tangible has eleven kinds: the four great elements, smoothness, roughness, heaviness, lightness, and cold, hunger, and thirst. Of these the great elements will be expounded at length below. Softness is named smoothness; coarse and strong is roughness; what can be weighed is named heaviness; the opposite is lightness; the desire for warmth 〔the cause of desiring warmth〕 is named cold; the desire for food 〔its cause〕 is named hunger; the desire for drink 〔its cause〕 is named thirst—these three are so spoken of because the name of the result is established upon the cause. As a stanza says:
〔Cited stanza〕The appearance of the Buddhas is happiness, the proclaiming of the true dharma is happiness, the concord of the Saṅgha is happiness, the vigorous striving of those who train together is happiness.〔This stanza is an instance of establishing the name of the result upon the cause.〕
In the form realm there are no tangibles of hunger and thirst, but the remaining tangibles are there: in that realm a single garment cannot be weighed, but a heap of them can; and cold and warmth, though they have no injuring function there, do have a benefiting function. So it is transmitted. Many sense fields of form have now been stated. Sometimes eye consciousness arises taking a single thing as its object—and then it cognizes each separately; sometimes eye consciousness arises taking many things as its object—and then it does not cognize each separately, as when one gazes at an army, a mountain forest, immeasurable colors and shapes, a heap of jewels, and so on. It should be known that the consciousnesses beginning with the ear are likewise. Some other masters say: body consciousness arises taking at most five kinds of tangible—the four great elements plus any one of smoothness and the rest. Others again say: at most it may arise taking all eleven tangibles together as its object. 〔Objection:〕 If that is so, the five consciousnesses would take their objects collectively and would be taking common marks as their objects rather than intrinsic marks. 〔Answer:〕 With respect to the intrinsic mark of the sense field, the five bodies of consciousness are allowed to take intrinsic-mark objects, though not the intrinsic mark of a thing—what fault is there in this? Now it should be considered: if two objects arrive at once at the body faculty and the tongue faculty, which consciousness arises first? Whichever object is the stronger, that consciousness arises first; if the objects are of equal strength, tongue consciousness arises first—because food and drink sustain the body and cause it to continue. The faculties, the objects, and the marks of taking an object having been stated, the marks of nonmanifest form are stated next. The stanza says:
〔Principal 8〕Nonmanifest Form
Stanza: In the states of a distracted mind, of no mind, and so forth, what flows on in continuity, pure or impure, having as its nature derivation from the great elements—on this basis it is spoken of as nonmanifest.
Treatise: Distracted mind means a mind other than this 〔nonmanifest form’s own〕; no mind means entering the absorption without perception and the absorption of cessation; the word and so forth shows that undistracted and minded states are included as well. Continuity of similar moments is called flowing on. Wholesome and unwholesome are called pure and impure. In order to set apart the acquisitions, which are also a continuity of similar moments 〔lest the two be confused〕, the words derived from the great elements are further added. The Vaibhāṣikas say: derived has the sense of cause, referring to the five causes such as production. 〔The stanza’s words on this basis〕 show the reason for establishing the name, and so on this basis is said. Although nonmanifest form, like manifest action, has form and action as its nature, it cannot be manifested so as to make others know it, and so it is named nonmanifest. To say what is spoken of is displayed by this is a statement of the master’s own school 〔the master’s school here is the home school, that is, the Sarvāstivāda〕: stated briefly, manifest action and the wholesome and unwholesome form produced in absorption are named nonmanifest. Since nonmanifest form is said to be derived from the great elements, what are the great elements? The stanza says:
〔Principal 9〕The Four Great Elements: Element · Function · Nature
Stanza: The great elements are the four elements—earth, water, fire, and wind; they can accomplish the functions of supporting and the rest; they have hardness, moisture, warmth, and motion as their natures.
Treatise: Earth, water, fire, and wind can maintain their own intrinsic marks and the forms derived from them, and so they are named elements. These four elements are also named great elements: because they are what all other forms depend upon, their nature being broad and wide; or because in aggregations where earth and the rest predominate their configurations are great; or because they can give rise to various great functions. What functions can these four great elements accomplish? In their order they can accomplish the four functions of sustaining, gathering, ripening, and increasing—the earth element sustains, the water element gathers, the fire element ripens, the wind element increases. Increasing means causing growth, or else drawing out 〔stretching forth〕. Their functions being such, what of their own natures? In their order they have hardness, moisture, warmth, and motion as their natures: the earth element the nature of hardness, the water element of moisture, the fire element of warmth, the wind element of motion. Motion means that it can draw the great elements and derived form on into continuity arising in another place, as when a lamp flame is blown, and so it is named motion. The Treatise on Categories of Dharmas and a sūtra say: ‘What is the wind element? It is the nature of motion, such as lightness.’ Yet lightness is said to be derived form. Therefore it should be said: the wind element has motion as its own nature, and its function is cited to display its substance, and so lightness is also said. Then what are earth and the rest 〔as the world speaks of them〕? They are distinct from the earth element and the rest. The stanza says:
〔Principal 10〕Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind as the World Speaks of Them; the Debate on “It Is Called Form Because It Deteriorates”
Stanza: 〔What the world calls〕 earth is color and shape, the name being established in accordance with worldly ideation; water and fire are likewise; wind means both the wind element and the same 〔naming in accordance with worldly ideation〕.
Treatise: 〔What the world calls〕 earth is color and shape, having the sense field of form as its substance, this name being provisionally established in accordance with worldly ideation—because when people of the world point out earth to one another, they point it out by color and shape. Water and fire are likewise. Wind is the wind element, because the world establishes the name of wind upon motion; or else, like earth and the rest, its name is established in accordance with worldly ideation, and wind too has color and shape—hence the stanza says the same, as when the world speaks of a black wind or a whirling wind, which is to indicate wind by color and shape. Why is it that this aggregate, ending with nonmanifest form, is collectively called form? Because of deterioration. As the World-Honored One said: ‘Bhikṣus, know that because it deteriorates it is named the aggregate of appropriation that is form.’ What can make it deteriorate? ‘Because a hand touches it, it thereupon deteriorates,’ and so on at length. Deterioration has the sense of being liable to be vexed and destroyed, and so in the Chapter on Meaning it is said:
〔Cited stanza〕Those who pursue the objects of desire constantly bear expectations; if the objects of desire are not attained, they are vexed and destroyed as though struck by an arrow.
And how is form 〔said to be liable to be vexed and destroyed〕? It is vexed and destroyed by desire—because through the disturbance of desire deterioration arises. Some say: it is named form because of resistant deformation. 〔Objection:〕 If so, the ultimate atom ought not to be named form, since it has no resistant deformation. 〔Answer:〕 This objection does not hold: there is no ultimate atom that abides singly and by itself; when many ultimate atoms are aggregated, the sense of resistant deformation is established. 〔Objection:〕 Past and future 〔forms〕 ought not to be named form. 〔Answer:〕 They too have had and will have resistant deformation; and they are of the same kind—like firewood already burned 〔which is still named firewood〕. 〔Objection:〕 Nonmanifest forms ought not to be named form. 〔First answer:〕 Some explain: manifest form has resistant deformation, and nonmanifest form receives the name form along with it, just as when a tree moves its shadow moves with it. 〔Assessment:〕 This explanation is not right, because 〔a shadow’s moving is resistant deformation, whereas nonmanifest form〕 has no resistant deformation; and because when the manifest ceases the nonmanifest ought to cease as well—as when a tree perishes its shadow must perish with it 〔yet in fact it does not〕. 〔Second answer:〕 Some explain: the great elements on which it depends have resistant deformation, and therefore nonmanifest action too obtains the name form. 〔Objection:〕 If so, then since what 〔eye consciousness and the rest〕 depend on 〔the faculties〕 has resistant deformation, the five consciousnesses beginning with eye consciousness ought also to be named form. 〔Answer:〕 This objection is not on equal terms: when nonmanifest form proceeds in dependence upon the great elements, it is as a shadow depends on a tree and light depends on a jewel 〔always following what it depends on〕; whereas the five consciousnesses beginning with the eye do not depend upon the faculties beginning with the eye in that way—the faculty is merely a condition assisting their arising. 〔Assessment:〕 But this way of speaking, of a shadow depending on a tree and light depending on a jewel, does not accord with the doctrine of the Vaibhāṣikas—for that school holds that the ultimate atoms of the colors of shadow and the rest each depend upon their own four great elements. And even granting that shadow and light depend upon tree and jewel, nonmanifest form is still unlike that kind of dependence: that school allows that the great elements depended upon may cease while nonmanifest form does not cease with them. Therefore the previous statement is still not enough to resolve the objection. 〔Third answer:〕 The author then puts forward a second explanation of his own to resolve the objection: what the five consciousnesses beginning with eye consciousness depend upon is not fixed—some of it has resistant deformation (the faculties beginning with the eye), some has none (the mind that has ceased without interval); whereas what nonmanifest form depends upon is not like this 〔it is always the great elements, which have resistant deformation〕. Therefore the earlier objection is indeed not on equal terms, and the principle that form is so named because of resistant deformation is established. The stanza says:
〔Principal 11, first half〕The Aggregate of Form Opened Out as Ten Sense Fields and Ten Elements
Stanza: Among these 〔within the aggregate of form〕, the faculties and the objects are allowed to be set up as the ten sense fields and ten elements.
Treatise: Within the nature of the aggregate of form stated above, it is precisely the faculties and objects that are set up as the ten sense fields and ten elements: under the gate of sense fields they are set up as ten sense fields—the sense field of eye, the sense field of form, and so on at length up to the sense field of body and the sense field of the tangible; under the gate of elements they are set up as ten elements—the eye element, the form element, and so on at length up to the body element and the tangible element. The aggregate of form and its sense fields and elements having been stated, the establishment of the sense fields and elements for the three aggregates beginning with feeling is stated next. The stanza says:
〔Principal 11, second half–12〕The Three Aggregates of Feeling, Perception, and Formations; the Sense Field and Element of Dharmas
Stanza: Feeling is the receiving that follows upon contact; perception has the grasping of images as its substance; the remaining 〔mental factors and unassociated formations〕 besides these are named the aggregate of formations. These three—feeling, perception, and formations—together with nonmanifest form and the unconditioned, are named the sense field of dharmas and the element of dharmas.
Treatise: The aggregate of feeling is threefold: the receiving that accords with contact 〔and arises from it〕, namely pleasant, painful, and neither painful nor pleasant. This can be further distinguished into six bodies of feeling—the feeling born of eye contact through the feeling born of mind contact. The aggregate of perception has as its substance the grasping of images, that is, the grasping of such marks as blue and yellow, long and short, male and female, hostile and friendly, painful and pleasant. This too is distinguished into six bodies of perception, as was said of feeling. Apart from the form, feeling, and perception preceding and the consciousness following, all remaining formations are named the aggregate of formations. However, the Bhagavat in a sūtra spoke of the six bodies of volition as the aggregate of formations; that was said with reference to what is most excellent. Why? Formation means constructing, and volition has the nature of action, its sense of constructing being strongest, and so it is the most excellent. Therefore the Buddha said: what constructs the conditioned with outflows is named the aggregate of appropriation that is formations. Were it not so 〔were the remaining mental factors and the unassociated formations not gathered into the aggregate of formations〕, the remaining mental factors and the unassociated formations would not be included in the aggregates, would therefore not belong to the truth of suffering or the truth of origin, and could not then be objects of what is to be known and abandoned—as the World-Honored One said: ‘If with respect to a single dharma one has not penetrated and not known it, I say one cannot make an end of suffering’; and the same is said of not abandoned and not extinguished. Therefore it must definitely be granted that all conditioned formations other than the four aggregates are included in the aggregate of formations. As for the three aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations here stated, together with nonmanifest form and the three unconditioned dharmas, these seven dharmas are set up under the gate of sense fields as the sense field of dharmas, and under the gate of elements as the element of dharmas. The sense fields and elements of the three aggregates beginning with feeling having been stated, the aggregate of consciousness and the establishment of its sense field and elements are stated next. The stanza says:
〔Principal 13〕The Aggregate of Consciousness: The Mind Sense Field · Seven Elements
Stanza: Consciousness is the cognizing of each thing separately; it is precisely what is named the mind sense field; and it should be known 〔under the gate of elements〕 to be set up as seven elements—the six consciousnesses together with the mind 〔element〕 that they become.
Treatise: Because it cognizes each of its own objects separately and takes the mark of the object as a whole, it is named the aggregate of consciousness. This is further differentiated into six bodies of consciousness—the body of eye consciousness through the body of mind consciousness. It should be known that the aggregate of consciousness so stated is set up under the gate of sense fields as the mind sense field, and under the gate of elements as seven elements: the eye consciousness element through the mind consciousness element, together with the mind element that these six consciousnesses become. Thus the five aggregates here stated are equivalent to the twelve sense fields and the eighteen elements: the aggregate of form apart from nonmanifest form is named the ten sense fields and also the ten elements; the aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations, together with nonmanifest form and the unconditioned, are collectively named the sense field of dharmas and also the element of dharmas; and it should be known that the aggregate of consciousness is named the mind sense field and also the seven elements (the six consciousness elements and the mind element). 〔Question:〕 Is not the aggregate of consciousness only the six bodies of consciousness? What further mind element is spoken of besides these? 〔Answer:〕 There is no other dharma—it lies precisely within these six consciousnesses. The stanza says:
〔Principal 14, first half〕The Mind Element = the Six Consciousnesses Ceasing without Interval
Stanza: It is precisely these six bodies of consciousness that, ceasing without interval, become mind.
Treatise: After these six bodies of consciousness have ceased without interval, they can produce the succeeding consciousness, and so they are named the mind element—just as one and the same person is a son with respect to this one and is named father with respect to that one; or as one and the same thing is a fruit with respect to this and is named a seed with respect to that. 〔Question:〕 If so, then in fact there ought to be only seventeen elements or only twelve—since the six consciousnesses and mind include one another. On what ground are eighteen elements established? The stanza says:
〔Principal 14, second half〕To Establish the Support of the Sixth, Hence Eighteen
Stanza: It is in order to establish the support of the sixth consciousness 〔that the mind element is set up separately〕; thus it should be known that the elements are eighteen.
Treatise: Just as the five consciousness elements each have their own separate support among the five elements beginning with the eye, so the sixth, mind consciousness, has no separate support—and in order to establish this support the mind element is spoken of. Thus the supports (the six faculties), the supported (the six consciousnesses), and the objects (the six objects) are six each, making eighteen elements. 〔Question:〕 If so, the last thought of one beyond training ought not to be a mind element, since after it ceases without interval no succeeding consciousness arises. 〔Answer:〕 Not so—it already abides in the nature of mind; that the succeeding consciousness does not arise is only because the remaining conditions are lacking. Herein, aggregate includes everything conditioned; aggregate of appropriation includes only everything with outflows; sense field and element comprehensively include all dharmas without remainder. Such is their inclusion taken separately; what of their inclusion taken together? The stanza says:
〔Principal 15〕One Aggregate, One Sense Field, One Element Include All Dharmas
Stanza: By one aggregate (form), one sense field (mind), and one element (dharmas), all dharmas are comprehensively included; and what is included is one’s own nature, not another’s, because a dharma is always separate from another’s nature.
Treatise: By the one aggregate of form, the one mind sense field, and the one element of dharmas, it should be known that all dharmas are comprehensively included without remainder. This is said, in the various passages, with respect to the ultimate sense: only one’s own nature is included, another’s nature is not. Why? Because a dharma is always separate from another’s nature. To be separate from that and yet be said to include that is not tenable in principle. Take the eye faculty as an example: it is included only in the aggregate of form, the eye sense field, the eye element, the truths of suffering and origin, and so forth—because that is its own nature; it is not included in the remaining aggregates or the remaining sense fields and elements—because it is separate from their natures. If in those passages one speaks with respect to the conventional sense, it should be known that other dharmas may also include other dharmas—as with the four means of gathering, by which a following is gathered in, and the like. 〔Question:〕 The eye, ear, and nose sense fields each have two places 〔left and right eye, left and right ear, two nostrils〕; why then is the substance of the elements not twenty-one? 〔Answer:〕 This objection has no ground. Why? The stanza says:
〔Principal 16, first half〕Kind, Object, and Consciousness Being the Same, Two Places but One Substance
Stanza: Because kind, object, and consciousness are the same, although 〔the eye and the rest〕 have two places, the substance of the element is one.
Treatise: Same in kind: the two places are alike the intrinsic nature of eye. Same in object: the two places alike take form as their object. Same in consciousness: the two places alike serve as the support of eye consciousness. For this reason the eye element, though it has two places, is one in substance. Ear and nose should be established in the same way. 〔Question:〕 If so, why are two places produced at all? The stanza says:
〔Principal 16, second half〕Two Are Produced for Comeliness
Stanza: Yet in order that 〔the bodily form〕 be comely, the eye and the rest each produce two places.
Treatise: In order that the bodily form on which they depend be comely, the substance of the element, though one, arises in two places—for if the eye faculty and the ear faculty each arose in only one place, and the nose had no two nostrils, the body would not be comely. 〔Assessment:〕 This explanation is not right: if they had been so from the beginning, who would call it ugly? Moreover cats, owls and the like 〔as to eyes and ears〕 are produced with two places—what comeliness is there in them? 〔The correct explanation:〕 Then why do the three faculties produce two? It is in order that the consciousness they generate be clear and well-formed—for it is directly observed in the world that when one eye is closed and so forth, the cognizing of form is not distinct. Therefore the three faculties each produce two places. The inclusion of the aggregates, sense fields, and elements having been stated, the sense of their words is stated next. What is the sense of the words aggregate, sense field, and element taken separately? The stanza says:
〔Principal 17, first half〕The Word-Sense of Aggregate, Sense Field, and Element: Collection · Gate of Arising · Lineage
Stanza: Collection, gate of arising, and lineage are the senses of the words aggregate, sense field, and element.
Treatise: The sense of a conjoined collection of conditioned dharmas is the sense of aggregate. As a sūtra says: ‘Whatever form there is, past, future, or present, internal or external, coarse or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all this taken briefly as one collection is called the aggregate of form.’ By this sense of collection the sense of aggregate is established. In this sūtra: what has ceased as impermanent is named past; what has not yet arisen is named future; what has arisen and not yet fallen away is named present; one’s own body is named internal, the rest external; or the distinction may be made with respect to the sense fields—what is resistant is named coarse, what is nonresistant subtle; or it may be established relatively. 〔Objection:〕 If it is established relatively, coarse and subtle cannot be established 〔for the same dharma is coarse relative to this and subtle relative to that〕. 〔Answer:〕 This objection is not right, because the terms of relation differ: what is coarse relative to that is never 〔relative to the same term〕 subtle, and what is subtle relative to that is never coarse—like father and son, or the truths of suffering and origin 〔one body bearing two names without contradiction〕. What is defiled is named inferior, what is undefiled superior; what is past or future is named far, what is present near. And so on up to the aggregate of consciousness, which should be known to be likewise, with one point of difference: what depends on the five faculties is named coarse, what depends on the mind faculty alone is named subtle; or the distinction may be made with respect to the levels. Such is what the Vaibhāṣikas say. The venerable Dharmatrāta further says thus: what is grasped by the five faculties is named coarse form, the rest subtle form; what is disagreeable is named inferior form, the rest superior form; what is in a place that cannot be seen is named far form, what is in a place that can be seen near form; and past form and the rest are made plain by their own names 〔past form being far, present form near, and so on〕. Feeling and the rest are likewise: according to the force of what they depend upon, far and near, coarse and subtle should be known as before. The sense of a gate for the arising and growth of mind and mental factors is the sense of sense field. Explained etymologically: because it can give rise to and cause the growth of mind and mental factors, it is named a sense field—which means that which can cause the growth of their functioning. The sense of the lineage of dharmas is the sense of element: as in a single mountain there are many lineages of ore—copper, iron, gold, silver, and the rest—which is called many elements; so likewise within a single body or a single continuum there are the lineages of the eighteen classes of dharmas, and these are named the eighteen elements. Here lineage has the sense of source of arising. Then what is the source of arising of the eye and the rest? The homogeneous cause of its own kind. 〔Objection:〕 If so, the unconditioned ought not to be named an element 〔since the unconditioned has no homogeneous cause〕. 〔Answer:〕 〔The unconditioned is〕 a source of arising for mind and mental factors 〔in the sense of the object condition〕. Some say: the word element expresses the sense of class—the intrinsic natures of the eighteen classes of dharmas being each distinct, they are named the eighteen elements. 〔Objection:〕 If the sense of collection is the sense of aggregate, then the aggregate ought to be provisional—for it is made together by the accumulation of many real things, like a collection, like a self. 〔Answer:〕 This objection is not right: a single real ultimate atom is also named an aggregate. 〔Objection:〕 If so, one ought not to say that the sense of collection is the sense of aggregate—for a single real thing has no sense of collection. 〔Further,〕 some say: the sense of being able to bear a heavy burden is the sense of aggregate—hence the world calls the shoulder an aggregate, since it is where many things are gathered. Others again say: the sense of being divisible into portions is the sense of aggregate—hence people of the world say ‘repay me in three aggregates and I shall give it to you’ 〔repayment in three instalments〕. 〔Assessment:〕 Such explanations transgress the words of the sūtra—for the sūtra says that the sense of collection is the sense of aggregate, as the sūtra states, ‘whatever form there is, past and so forth,’ expounded at length as before. And if one were to say that this sūtra shows that past forms and the rest are each separately named an aggregate, and that therefore every past form and the rest, each real thing singly, is named an aggregate—such a grasping has no ground, since that sūtra says, ‘all this taken briefly as one collection is called the aggregate.’ Therefore, just like a collection, an aggregate is definitively provisional. 〔Objection:〕 If so, one ought to grant that the sense fields possessing form are provisional as well—for the ultimate atoms of eye and the rest must be accumulated in numbers before they form a gate of arising. 〔Answer:〕 This objection has no ground: within the accumulation of many, each single ultimate atom has the function of a cause 〔each being a condition for the arising of consciousness〕. Were it not so, the faculty and the object, assisting one another to produce consciousness and the rest, would not constitute separate sense fields, and there would then be no distinction of twelve sense fields. And the Vaibhāṣikas say thus: if the masters of Abhidharma have the provisional aggregate in view, they say that an ultimate atom is a portion of one element, one sense field, one aggregate; if they do not have it in view, they say that an ultimate atom simply is one element, one sense field, one aggregate. 〔Assessment:〕 This ought to be said as with respect to a part—for provisional refers to the possessor of parts 〔the whole〕, as when a small piece of a garment is burned and one still says ‘the garment is burned.’ Why did the World-Honored One expound the objects of knowledge under the three gates of aggregate, sense field, and element? The stanza says:
〔Principal 17, second half〕Because Folly, Faculty, and Preference Are Each Threefold, Three Gates Are Taught
Stanza: Because folly, faculty, and preference are each of three kinds, the three gates of aggregate, sense field, and element are taught.
Treatise: The beings to be trained are of three grades, and therefore the World-Honored One taught them the three gates of aggregate and the rest. It is transmitted that beings’ folly is of three kinds—either folly about mental factors, grasping them collectively as a self, or folly about form alone, or folly about both form and mind; faculty too is of three kinds—sharp, middling, and dull; preference too is of three kinds—preference for brief wording, for middling wording, and for extended wording. In that order the World-Honored One taught them the three gates of aggregate, sense field, and element 〔to those foolish about mental factors, the aggregates; to those foolish about form, the sense fields; to those foolish about form and mind, the elements; to the sharp who prefer brevity, the aggregates; to the middling, the sense fields; to the dull who prefer extension, the elements〕. Why did the World-Honored One place the remaining mental factors collectively in the aggregate of formations, yet set feeling and perception apart as two aggregates? The stanza says:
〔Principal 18〕Why Feeling and Perception Are Set Up Separately as Aggregates
Stanza: Because they are the roots of dispute, the causes of birth and death, and because of the reason of sequence, among the mental factors feeling and perception are set up separately as aggregates.
Treatise: The roots of dispute are two: attachment to the objects of desire and attachment to views. Feeling and perception are, in that order, the most excellent causes of these two: through the force of relishing feeling one becomes attached to the objects of desire; through the force of inverted perception one becomes attached to views. Again, the dharmas of birth and death have feeling and perception as their most excellent causes: through indulging in feeling inverted perception arises, and by this one revolves in birth and death. On account of these two causes, and of the reason of sequence to be stated below, it should be known that feeling and perception are set up separately as aggregates. The reason of sequence will be distinguished next. Why is the unconditioned spoken of within the sense fields and elements, yet not included in the aggregates? The stanza says:
〔Principal 19, first half〕The Aggregates Do Not Include the Unconditioned
Stanza: The aggregates do not include the unconditioned, because the sense does not correspond.
Treatise: The three unconditioned dharmas cannot be spoken of as within the aggregates beginning with form, because they do not correspond to the sense of form and the rest—their substance is not form and so on down to not consciousness 〔they enter none of the five aggregates〕; nor can they be spoken of as a sixth aggregate, because they do not correspond to the sense of aggregate: the sense of collection is the sense of aggregate, as was expounded at length above, whereas unconditioned dharmas do not, like form and the rest, have the class distinctions of past and so forth such that they could be ‘taken briefly as one collection’ and named an unconditioned aggregate. Further, aggregate of appropriation is spoken of in order to display the support of defilement, while the word aggregate displays the support of both defilement and purity; the unconditioned touches neither of these two senses, does not correspond, and so is not set up as an aggregate. Some say: as a broken jar is not a jar, so an aggregate that has been quieted ought not to be an aggregate 〔hence the unconditioned is not set up as an aggregate〕. 〔Assessment:〕 On his account the same fault ought to follow for the sense fields and elements 〔which do include the unconditioned—would they too be quieted away?〕. The setting up and not setting up of the aggregates having been stated, their sequence is stated next. The stanza says:
〔Principal 19, second half〕The Reasons for the Sequence of the Five Aggregates
Stanza: Following coarseness, following defilement, following the vessel and the rest, and following the distinction of realms, the sequence 〔of the five aggregates〕 is established.
Treatise: Form has resistance and obstruction, and so among the aggregates it is the coarsest. Among the four formless aggregates, the coarsest is only the mode of feeling—hence people of the world say such things as ‘my hand hurts,’ ‘my foot hurts.’ Relative to the latter two, perception is coarse—perceptions of male and female and the like being easily cognized. Formations are coarser than consciousness—actions such as greed and hatred being easily cognized. Consciousness is the subtlest—since it takes the mark of the object as a whole and is hard to distinguish. By this following coarseness the sequence of the five aggregates is established. Or else: from beginningless birth and death, male and female have loved one another in respect of form, and this because of indulging in the relish of pleasant feeling; and indulgence in feeling arises through inverted perception; and this inverted perception arises through the afflictions (formations); and all these afflictions arise in dependence on consciousness. These 〔formations〕 together with the preceding three 〔form, feeling, perception〕 all defile consciousness 〔and so consciousness comes last〕—by this following defilement the sequence of the five aggregates is established. Or else: form is like a vessel, feeling like the food, perception like the seasoning that aids the flavor, formations like the cook, consciousness like the eater—hence by following the vessel and the rest the sequence of the five aggregates is established. Or else the sequence of the five aggregates is established by following the distinction of realms: in the realm of desire there are the various excellent objects of desire, and the mark of form is manifest; in the meditative absorptions of the form realm there is excellent joy and the rest, and the mark of feeling is manifest; in the three formless 〔the first three formless absorptions〕 one grasps the mark of space and the rest, and the mark of perception is manifest; in the first existence (neither perception nor non-perception) volition is most excellent, and the mark of formations is manifest. And these are the stations of consciousness—consciousness abides in them, just like the sequence of field and seed in the world. Such, then, is the sequence of the aggregates. By this the five aggregates incur no fault of being too many or too few; and it is by these same reasons of sequence that feeling and perception are set apart from the formations as two aggregates—feeling and perception being, among the formations, the coarsest in mark, the sharpest in producing defilement, alike to food and to the seasoning that aids flavor, and strongest in two realms 〔the realms of desire and of form〕, and so they are set up separately as aggregates. Under the gates of sense field and element the sequence of the six faculties should be distinguished first, from which the sequence of the objects and the consciousnesses may be known by analogy. The stanza says:
〔Principal 20〕The Sequence of the Six Faculties
Stanza: The objects of the first five faculties are only present; the objects of 〔the first〕 four faculties are only derived form; the rest 〔their order〕 follows the distance, speed, and clarity of their functioning, or else follows the upper and lower placement of their supports.
Treatise: Among the six faculties, the first five beginning with the eye grasp only present objects, and so they are stated first 〔before the mind faculty〕. The objects of the mind faculty are not fixed: the three times and the unconditioned, of which it may grasp only one, or two, three, or four. As to the objects of four are only derived: continuing from above, among the five faculties the objects of the first four are only derived form, and so they are stated first 〔before the body faculty〕. The objects of the body faculty are not fixed: it may grasp the great elements, or derived form, or both. The rest refers to the first four faculties, which as appropriate are stated first according to the distance, speed, and clarity of their functioning: the two faculties of eye and ear grasp distant objects, and so they are stated before the two 〔nose and tongue〕; of these two the functioning of the eye is more distant, and so it is stated first—one sees mountains and rivers from afar without hearing their sound; and the functioning of the eye is also swift—one first sees from afar a man striking a bell or drum and only afterward hears the sound. The two faculties of nose and tongue both fall short in distance; the nose is stated first because of speed and clarity—as when one faces fragrant and delicious food, the nose smells the fragrance first and the tongue tastes the flavor afterward. Or else the sequence of the faculties may be stated according to the upper and lower placement of their supports within the body: the support of the eye is placed highest, then the ear, the nose, and the tongue; 〔the support of〕 the body is for the most part lower; and the mind has no location, and some of it arises in dependence on the faculties, and so it is stated last. Why is it that all ten sense fields are included in the aggregate of form, yet the name sense field of form is established for only one of them? And why is it that the substance of all twelve sense fields is dharmas, yet the name sense field of dharmas is established for only one? The stanza says:
〔Principal 21〕Why the Sense Field of Form and the Sense Field of Dharmas Alone Take the General Names
Stanza: For the sake of distinction, and because of excellence, and 〔because the sense field of dharmas〕 includes many dharmas and the dominant dharma, one sense field is named form and one is named dharmas.
Treatise: For the sake of distinction: in order that the various distinctions between the nature of an object and the nature of what possesses an object be known, ten sense fields are established within the aggregate of form according to their distinguishing marks, rather than being taken as a single sense field. If 〔the other nine sense fields〕 had no distinguishing name-ideation such as eye and were merely named the sense field of form because their substance is form, then this one sense field, being set apart by the names of eye and the rest, would in fact be a particular name even while bearing the general designation. Further, among all forms the sense field of form is the most excellent, and so the general name is established 〔for it〕: because it is resistant—when a hand or the like touches it, it thereupon deteriorates; and because it is visible—one can point out the distinction of its being here or there; and because in the world it is only with respect to this sense field that people commonly speak of form, not with respect to the eye and the rest. Again, for the sake of distinction, the name dharma is likewise established for only one sense field, not for all sense fields, on the same principle as the sense field of form, as should be known. And because this 〔sense field of dharmas〕 includes many dharmas such as feeling and perception, the general name should be established for it; and because the dominant dharma, namely nirvāṇa, is included in it, it alone is named dharmas. Some other masters say: within the sense field of form there are twenty kinds of form, the coarsest and most evident, and it is the object of the three eyes—the fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the noble eye of discernment—and so it alone is given the name form; within the sense field of dharmas there are the names of all dharmas and the knowledge of dharmas 〔which arises taking it as object〕, and so it alone is given the name dharmas. In the sūtras still other name-ideations of aggregate, sense field, and element are to be found—are they included in these 〔aggregates, sense fields, and elements〕, or do they fall outside them? They are all included here, as should be known according to what corresponds. First the name-ideations that include the remaining aggregates are distinguished. The stanza says:
〔Principal 22〕The Substance of the Eighty Thousand Dharma-Aggregates
Stanza: The dharma-aggregates spoken of by the Sage number eighty thousand; their substance is either speech or name, and among these 〔five aggregates〕 they are included in the aggregate of form or the aggregate of formations.
Treatise: Those masters who hold that the Buddha’s teaching has speech as its substance say that the dharma-aggregates are all included in the aggregate of form 〔speech being sound, and sound being form〕; those masters who hold that the Buddha’s teaching has name as its substance say that the dharma-aggregates are all included in the aggregate of formations 〔name being an unassociated formation〕. Of these dharma-aggregates, how great is the measure of each one? The stanza says:
〔Principal 23〕The Measure of a Dharma-Aggregate
Stanza: Some say: the measure of each dharma-aggregate is as stated in that Dharmaskandha; or else it follows the gates of teaching such as the aggregates 〔one gate, one dharma-aggregate〕; but speaking in accordance with reality, it is the counteracting of the 〔eighty thousand〕 modes of conduct.
Treatise: Some masters say: of the eighty thousand dharma-aggregates, the measure of each equals the Dharmaskandha—that is, each one of them 〔of the eighty thousand〕 has six thousand stanzas 〔the measure of the whole Dharmaskandha〕, as stated in the Dharmaskandha within the Abhidharma. Or some say: dharma-aggregates number eighty thousand according to the several distinctions of the teachings such as the aggregates—aggregates, sense fields, elements, dependent origination, the truths, the nutriments, the meditative absorptions, the immeasurables, the formless, the liberations, the bases of mastery, the totalities, the limbs of awakening, the supernormal powers, the state of non-contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the unobstructed knowledges, and the rest, each gate of teaching being named one dharma-aggregate. Speaking in accordance with reality: the beings to be trained have eighty thousand distinct modes of conduct such as greed and hatred, and in order to counteract these eighty thousand modes of conduct the World-Honored One expounded eighty thousand dharma-aggregates. And the eighty thousand dharma-aggregates so stated are all included in two of these five aggregates 〔form and formations〕. In the same way, the aggregates, sense fields, and elements in the remaining sūtras should also be 〔included〕 thus. The stanza says:
〔Principal 24〕The Remaining Aggregates, Sense Fields, and Elements Are Included as Corresponds
Stanza: Thus the remaining aggregates and the rest are, each as corresponds, included in what has been stated above; one should examine closely the intrinsic mark of each.
Treatise: The aggregates, sense fields, and elements in the remaining sūtras are included, as corresponds, in what has been stated above; and with respect to the aggregates and the rest stated in this treatise one should examine closely the intrinsic mark of each one of them. Thus, for instance, the sūtras speak of another set of five aggregates—the five aggregates of morality, concentration, discernment, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation: among these the aggregate of morality is included in this aggregate of form, and the remaining four aggregates in this aggregate of formations. Again the sūtras speak of the ten totalities and the rest: the first eight totalities have non-greed as their nature and are included in this sense field of dharmas; if taken together with their companions they have the nature of five aggregates and are included in this mind sense field and sense field of dharmas. The inclusion of the eight bases of mastery should be known to be likewise. The two totalities of space and consciousness and the four formless spheres beginning with the infinity of space have the nature of four aggregates and are included in this mind sense field and sense field of dharmas. The five bases of liberation have discernment as their nature and are included in this sense field of dharmas; if taken together with their companions they are included in these three sense fields of sound, mind, and dharmas. Again there are two places—the place of the heaven of non-percipient beings and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception: the former is included in these ten sense fields (since there is no odor or taste there); the latter is included in these two sense fields of mind and dharmas (having the nature of four aggregates). Again the Sūtra of Many Elements says that the distinctions of elements are sixty-two; as corresponds, it should be known that they are all included in these eighteen elements. And of the six elements stated in that sūtra: the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind have been stated; the marks of the two elements of space and consciousness have not yet been stated—is space itself named the space element, and is every consciousness named the consciousness element? No. Then how is it? The stanza says:
〔Principal 25〕The Space Element and the Consciousness Element
Stanza: The space element means apertures; it is transmitted that these are brightness and darkness. The consciousness element is consciousness with outflows, the support of the arising of sentient beings.
Treatise: The inner and outer apertures such as doors, windows, mouth, and nose are named the space element. How are these apertures cognized? It is transmitted: apertures are precisely brightness and darkness—apart from brightness and darkness apertures cannot be apprehended, and so it is said that the space element has brightness and darkness as its substance. It should be known that this substance is not apart from day and night. This is also named form neighboring agha. It is transmitted: agha refers to accumulated form—being maximally obstructive it is named agha 〔obstruction〕; and this form of the space element neighbors it, and so is named form neighboring agha. Some say: agha is the form of the space element itself—here it is named agha because it is non-obstructive 〔unobstructed〕; and what neighbors this agha-form is the remaining obstructive form, and so it is named form neighboring agha. All consciousness with outflows is named the consciousness element. Why is consciousness without outflows not said to be the consciousness element? Because it is granted that the six elements are the support of the arising of sentient beings—these six elements constantly maintain that arising from the mind of rebirth-linking (that thought which links to a new existence) to the mind at death; dharmas without outflows are not so. Among those six elements: the first four (earth, water, fire, wind) are included in this 〔eighteen-element〕 tangible element; the fifth (the space element) is included in this form element; the sixth (the consciousness element) is included in these seven mind elements. The remaining elements of that sūtra are, as corresponds, all included in these eighteen elements here.
諸門分別·結Distinctions through the Several Gates · Conclusion
全文五層 →Full five layers →〔正26〕有見無見·有對無對·善不善無記三門
〔卷二起。〕再者，在前面所說的十八界中，幾界有見、幾界無見？幾界有對、幾界無對？幾界是善、幾界不善、幾界無記？頌說：
頌：一界「有見」，即色界；十界是有色的「有對」；這十界中除去色與聲的八界是無記；其餘諸界通善、不善、無記三種。
論：十八界中，唯「色界」（色境）是有見——因為可以指示出「在此」「在彼」的差別。以此類推，其餘諸界都是無見。有見無見已說。唯色蘊所攝的十界（五根五境）是有對。「對」是障礙之義，又分三種：障礙有對、境界有對、所緣有對。障礙有對，指十色界——自身在他物所占之處被礙而不能生起，如手礙手、石礙石、或手石相礙。境界有對，指十二界（七心界＋五根）及法界一分的『有境之法』，於色等境界〔被局限〕。所以《施設論》這樣說：有的眼於水中有礙〔起用〕而非陸上，如魚等的眼；有的眼於陸上有礙而非水中——就多分說，如人等的眼；有的眼水陸俱礙，如畢舍遮（噉精氣鬼）、室獸摩羅（鱷）及捕魚人、蝦蟇等的眼；有的俱非，即除前三相之外者。有的眼於夜有礙而非晝，如蝙蝠、鵂鶹等的眼；有的眼於晝有礙而非夜——就多分說，如人等的眼；有的晝夜俱礙，如狗、野干、馬、豹、豺、狼、貓、狸等的眼；有的俱非，除前相。這些名為境界有對。所緣有對，指心與心所於自己的所緣〔被局限〕。境界與所緣又有什麼分別？若此法於彼法有功能，就說彼是此法的「境界」；心心所法執取彼而生起，彼對於心等就名「所緣」。為什麼眼等在自己的境界、所緣上轉起時說名「有礙」？因為越出彼境，它便不能於其餘處轉起。或者「礙」是和會之義——眼等法於自境界、自所緣和會而轉。應知此頌中是單就「障礙有對」而說，所以只說「十有色有對」——互相障礙之故。以此類推，其餘諸界無對。〔問：〕若法是境界有對，也必是障礙有對嗎？應作四句：七心界與法界一分的相應法，是第一句（境界有對而非障礙有對）；色等五境是第二句（障礙有對而非境界有對）；眼等五根是第三句（俱是）；法界一分的非相應法是第四句（俱非）。若法境界有對，也必所緣有對嗎？應作「順後句」：凡所緣有對，定是境界有對；有境界有對而非所緣有對者，即眼等五根。此中大德鳩摩邏多這樣說：
〔引頌〕心欲於此處生起，被他物所礙而不得起——應知這就是「有對」；「無對」與此相違。
這是〔論主〕所認可的。有對無對已說。在這十種有對之中，除去色與聲，其餘八界是無記——五色根與香、味、觸境，不可記別為善或不善之性，所以名無記。有人說：因為不能記招異熟果，所以名無記。〔評：〕若這樣，無漏法就應當都是無記了〔無漏不招異熟〕。其餘十界通善等三種：七心界與無貪等相應的名善、與貪等相應的名不善、其餘名無記。法界中，若是無貪等自性、相應、等起，以及擇滅，名善；若貪等自性、相應、等起，名不善；餘名無記。色界（色境）與聲界，若是善、不善心之力所等起、屬身表語表所攝的，是善不善；其餘是無記。善等已說。十八界中幾界繫屬欲界、幾界繫屬色界、幾界繫屬無色界？頌說：
〔正27〕三界繫屬門
頌：欲界繫具足十八；色界繫十四——除去香、味與鼻識、舌識；無色界繫唯有後三。
論：「繫」是繫屬，就是被縛之義。欲界所繫具足十八界。色界所繫唯十四種：除香味二境及鼻舌二識。除香味，因為它們是段食之性——要離了段食之欲才能生到色界。除鼻舌識，因為〔彼界香味既無〕它們沒有所緣。〔難：〕若這樣，觸界在色界也應當沒有——觸如香味一樣是段食性。〔答：〕色界所有的觸不是段食性。〔難：〕那香味也應如此〔留下非段食性的香味〕。〔答：〕香味離了飲食沒有別的受用；觸有別的用途——執持諸根、作衣服等。生彼界者既離食欲，香味便無用；而根與衣等仍在，所以觸不無。有其他論師說：住此欲界、依彼色界靜慮等至而見色聞聲時，與輕安俱起的殊勝之觸攝益於身——所以色、聲、觸三者生到彼界靜慮仍相隨逐；香味不然，所以彼界沒有。〔難：〕若這樣，鼻舌二根在彼應非有——如香味境一樣，在彼無用。〔答：〕不然，二根於彼有用：發起言說、莊嚴身相。〔難：〕若為嚴身與言說，只須「依處」（鼻舌之形）就夠了，何必要「根」？〔答：〕如彼界無男根、也就無男根依處——二根若無，依處也應無〔依處猶在，正顯根有用〕。〔難：〕彼界男根依處可以沒有，因為於彼全無用；鼻舌依處於彼有用，所以離根仍應有依處〔仍不須根〕。〔答：〕也有雖無用而根照樣生起的——如處於胞胎中注定將死者〔諸根仍具〕；雖無用而生，也不是無因。〔徵：〕那麼彼界從什麼因得有根起？〔答：〕由於對根有愛、發起殊勝之業。〔難：〕若已離境愛，對根之愛也決定離——彼界既離香味之貪，就應無鼻舌根。否則也應許彼界男根生起。若說男根不生是因為醜陋——陰藏隱密，哪有什麼醜陋？而且諸根之生本不由「有用」：若有因力，無用也生。〔評破：〕男根在彼縱是醜陋，設若有因，於彼應起；男根既非有，鼻舌〔依同理〕應無。〔難：〕若這樣，便違契經所說：彼界眾生「無支缺，不減諸根」。〔答：〕經意是：隨彼界諸根應可有者說為不減，有什麼相違？〔評：〕若不許這樣解，男根也應有了。如是說者（論主評定）：鼻舌二根於彼非無，只是無香味——因為對六根的愛是依內身而生，不是依境界而現起；而男根之愛是依婬觸而生，婬觸彼無，男根便非有。所以色界十八界中唯十四種，道理得以成立。無色界所繫唯有後三：意界、法界及意識界。要離色欲方得生彼，所以無色界中沒有十色界；所依（五根）所緣（五境）既無，五識也無——所以唯後三界繫屬無色。界繫已說。十八界中幾有漏、幾無漏？頌說：
〔正28前半〕有漏無漏門
頌：意、法、意識三界通〔有漏無漏〕；其餘唯是有漏。
論：意界及意識界，屬道諦所攝的名無漏，其餘名有漏。法界中，若是道諦及無為，名無漏，餘名有漏。其餘十五界唯名有漏。有漏無漏已說。十八界中幾有尋有伺、幾無尋唯伺、幾無尋無伺？頌說：
〔正28後半〕尋伺門
頌：五識唯是有尋有伺；後三界通三品；其餘〔十色界〕俱無。
論：眼等五識有尋有伺——因為恆與尋、伺共相應，行相粗、向外門轉，此義決定，故頌置「唯」言。「後三」即意、法、意識——在根、境、識三類中各居最後。此後三界皆通三品：意界、意識界及〔法界中〕相應法界（除尋與伺自身），在欲界、初靜慮中有尋有伺，靜慮中間（中間定）無尋唯伺，第二靜慮以上諸地乃至有頂無尋無伺。法界所攝的非相應法〔一向無尋無伺〕；靜慮中間的伺也是這樣〔亦是無尋無伺〕。至於「尋」自身：一切時皆是「無尋唯伺」——因為沒有第二個尋〔尋不與尋相應〕、只與伺相應。那麼欲界、初靜慮中的「伺」三品不收，應叫什麼？應名「無伺唯尋」——沒有第二個伺、只與尋相應。由此說：有尋伺地共有四品法——一、有尋有伺，即除尋伺外其餘相應法；二、無尋唯伺，即尋自身；三、無尋無伺，即一切非相應法；四、無伺唯尋，即伺自身。其餘十色界尋伺俱無，因為恆不與尋伺相應。〔問：〕五識身既有尋有伺，為何又說它「無分別」？頌說：
〔正29〕五識無分別義
頌：說五識無分別，是就「計度」「隨念」二分別而言；此二以意地的散慧、與意識相應的諸念為體。
論：傳說：分別略有三種——自性分別、計度分別、隨念分別。五識身雖有自性分別而無其餘二種，所以說「無分別」——如只有一足的馬名為「無足」。自性分別，體就是「尋」，後面心所法中自當辨釋。其餘二種分別，依次以「意地散慧」與「諸念」為體：「散」謂非定；與意識相應的散慧，名計度分別；或定或散、與意識相應的諸念，名隨念分別。有尋伺等已說。十八界中幾有所緣、幾無所緣？幾有執受、幾無執受？頌說：
〔正30〕有所緣·執受二門
頌：七心界與法界之半（心所），有所緣；其餘無。前八界（七心＋法）及聲，無執受；其餘九界通二。
論：六識、意界及法界所攝的諸心所法，名有所緣——能取境之故。其餘十色界及法界所攝的不相應法，名無所緣——以理類推可成。有所緣等已說。十八界中九界無執受：前七心界及法界全部，這八界加上聲界，皆無執受。所餘九界（五根＋色香味觸）各通二門——有執受、無執受：眼等五根住現在世的名有執受，過去未來的名無執受；色香味觸住現在世、不離五根的名有執受，若住現在而非不離根、以及過去未來的，名無執受——如身內除了與根相合者之外的髮、毛、爪、齒、大小便利、涕、唾、血等，及身外地水等中的色香味觸，雖在現世而無執受。「有執受」是什麼意思？心與心所共同執持、攝為依處，名有執受——損益展轉互相隨故；也就是世間說的「有覺觸」——眾緣所觸便覺樂等。與此相違名無執受。執受等已說。十八界中幾是大種性、幾是所造性？幾可積集、幾非積集？頌說：
〔正31〕大種所造·積集二門
頌：觸界中有二種（大種與所造）；其餘九色界唯是所造；法界一分（無表）亦然；十色界可積集。
論：觸界通二：大種（堅等四）與所造（滑等七，依大種生故名所造）。其餘九色界（五根＋色聲香味）唯是所造。法界一分的無表業色也唯是所造。其餘七心界及法界一分（除無表色）二種俱非。尊者覺天這樣說：十種色處都唯是大種性。〔評：〕他的說法不對：契經唯說堅、濕、煖、動四相為大種，這四大種唯觸處所攝——堅濕等並非眼等所能取，色聲等並非身根所能覺，所以彼說決定不然。又契經說：『苾芻當知：眼是內處，四大種所造淨色，有色、無見、有對』，乃至身處，廣說也是這樣；『色是外處，四大種所造，有色、有見、有對；聲是外處，四大種所造，有色、無見、有對』，香味二處廣說亦然；『觸是外處，是四大種及四大種所造，有色、無見、有對』——經中唯於觸處說「攝四大種」，分明顯示其餘有色處皆非大種。〔難：〕那為何契經又說『於眼肉團中，若內各別有堅性堅類』，乃至廣說？〔答：〕彼經是說不離眼根的「肉團」中有堅性等〔堅在肉團不在眼根〕，沒有相違之過。《入胎經》中唯說六界為士夫（人），那是為顯能成士夫的根本事，並非唯止於此——彼經又說六觸處之故。又〔若唯六界〕諸心所便應非有；也不應執『心所即是心』——契經說想、受等心所法「依止心」之故，又說「有貪心」等之故。由此，如前所說諸界的大種、所造分別，其義得成。大種性等已說。十八界中，五根五境十有色界是可積集——極微所聚之故；以理類推，其餘八界非可積集——非極微之故。可積集等已說。十八界中，幾能斫、幾所斫？幾能燒、幾所燒？幾能稱、幾所稱？頌說：
〔正32〕能斫所斫·能燒所燒·能稱所稱門
頌：唯外四界（色香味觸），是能斫及所斫，也是所燒、能稱；至於能燒與所稱，有諍論。
論：色香味觸構成斧、薪等，這就名為能斫、所斫。什麼叫「斫」？薪等色聚相連續生，斧等把它分隔、令各自相續生起——這就名斫。身等色根不名所斫——不可能把它全然斷開成兩個：身根等不能成為二分，支分一離身，其中便無根了。身根等也非能斫——因為淨妙之故，如珠寶之光〔光不能砍物〕。如能斫所斫唯外四界，所燒、能稱其體亦然——唯外四界名所燒、能稱；身等色根也非此二事，淨妙如珠寶光故；聲界全然不是——不相續之故〔聲隨生隨滅，無可燒可稱之相續體〕。至於能燒與所稱，有不同諍論：有人說能燒、所稱之體也如前唯外四界；又有人說唯火界可名能燒、所稱唯是重性。能斫所斫等已說。十八界中幾異熟生、幾所長養、幾等流性、幾有實事、幾一剎那？頌說：
〔正33–34前半〕五類分別門
頌：內五界（五根）有異熟生與所長養；聲無異熟生；八無礙界（七心＋法）是等流性、也是異熟生性；其餘（色香味觸）三種俱通；「實」唯法界；「一剎那」唯後三界。
論：內五即眼等五界，有異熟生及所長養，無等流——因為離了異熟生與所長養，並無別體。異熟生：異熟因所生名異熟生，如牛所駕的車名牛車，省去中間之言。或者：所造之業到得果時「變而能熟」，故名異熟，果從彼生名異熟生。或者：彼所得果與因類別不同而是「所熟」，故名異熟。或者：在因上假立果名——如同在果上假立因名，如契經說：『今六觸處，應知即是昔所造業』〔果上立因名之例〕。所長養：由飲食、資助（塗摩沐浴）、眠睡、等持（定）等勝緣所增益的，名所長養。有人說梵行也能長養。〔評：〕梵行只是無損，並非別有增益。長養的相續常能護持異熟的相續，猶如外郭防衛內城。聲有等流性及所長養，無異熟生。為什麼？因為它『隨欲而轉』〔想發聲就發聲，異熟不由現欲〕。〔難：〕若這樣，就不應如《施設論》所說：善修遠離粗惡語故，感得大士梵音聲相〔聲豈非業果〕。〔答一〕有人說：聲屬「第三傳」故，雖由彼業生而非異熟——謂從彼業生諸大種、從諸大種緣擊發聲。〔答二〕有人說：聲屬「第五傳」故，雖由彼業生而非異熟——謂彼業生異熟大種、從此傳生長養大種、此復傳生等流大種、此乃生聲。〔評：〕若這樣，身受也是從業所生的大種而生，也應非異熟了；若受同聲一例，便違正理。八無礙（七心界與法界）有等流性、異熟生性：同類因、遍行因所生的是等流性，異熟因所引生的名異熟生；諸無礙法無積集故非所長養。「餘」謂餘四——色、香、味、觸——皆通三種：有異熟生、有所長養、有等流性。實唯法：「實」謂無為，以其堅實之故；無為唯法界所攝，所以唯法界獨名「有實」。一剎那：意、法、意識名「後三」（六界三類中最後說故）；唯此三界有「一剎那」法，即最初無漏的苦法忍品——非等流之故名一剎那〔前無同類，唯一剎那孤起〕。這是說「究竟非等流者」；其餘有為法沒有不是等流的。苦法忍相應之心，名意界、意識界；與之俱起的其餘諸法，名法界。異熟生等已說。現在應思擇：若有眼界先前不成就、如今得成就，眼識也如此嗎？若眼識界先不成就今得成就，眼界也如此嗎？這類問題，如今應略答。頌說：
〔正34後半〕眼界眼識得·成就四句
頌：眼界與眼識界，有獨得、俱得、俱非；「成就」亦應如「等」字所示廣作四句。
論：獨得：或有眼界先不成就今得成就而眼識不然——如生在欲界漸得眼根時、或從無色界歿生二三四靜慮地時〔彼地眼識須借初定〕。或有眼識先不成就今得成就而眼界不然——如生二三四靜慮地眼識現起時、或從彼歿生下地時。俱得：或有二界先俱不成就今俱得——如從無色界歿、生欲界或梵世時。俱非：除前相。「等」謂：若成就眼界，也成就眼識嗎？應作四句：第一句（成就眼界非眼識），謂生二三四靜慮地而眼識不起時；第二句（成就眼識非眼界），謂生欲界未得眼根、或得而復失時；第三句（俱成就），謂生欲界得眼不失時、生梵世時、及生二三四靜慮地正見色時；第四句（俱不成就），除前相。眼界與色界、眼識與色界的得與成就等，也照此道理應思——為攝這些未說之義，頌中總說一「等」字。得成就等已說。十八界中幾內、幾外？頌說：
〔正35前半〕內外門
頌：內是十二界——眼等（六根六識）；色等六境為外。
論：六根、六識十二界名內，其餘色等六境為外。〔問：〕內外是依「我」而立（我所依名內，此外名外）；「我體」既然沒有，哪來內外？〔答：〕「我執」之所依止，故假說心為我。所以契經說：
〔引頌〕由於善調伏「我」，智者得以生天。
而世尊在別處說的是調伏「心」，如契經言：
〔引頌〕應當善調伏心，心調伏了能引安樂。
可見只是在「心」上假說為我。眼等諸根是這假我（心）所依、與它親近，所以名內；色等是它所緣、疏遠，所以名外。〔難：〕若這樣，六識應不名內——它們還沒到「意」的位置（尚未過去），不是心（意）之所依。〔答：〕六識到達意位時並不失六識界之性，未至意位時也不曾越出「意」之相〔它本性即是當來之意〕。若不這樣，意界就唯在過去世、六識唯在現在未來，便違自宗「十八界皆通三世」之義。又，若未來現在的六識沒有意界之相，過去的意界也應不得成立——法相於三世是不會改易的。內外已說。十八界中幾是同分、幾是彼同分？頌說：
〔正35後半〕同分彼同分門
頌：法界唯是同分；其餘十七界通同分、彼同分二種——依「作自業、不作自業」而分。
論：法同分：唯一法界一向是同分。若境對於識決定作所緣、識於其中已生或必將生（生法），這所緣境就名同分。而沒有任何一分法界，不是無邊意識已、正、當生於其中的——因為諸聖者決定會生起『觀一切法皆無我』之心；此心除自體及俱有法外，緣一切法；而所除的那一分，也是第二念心的所緣境。這前後二念心緣一切境無不周遍，所以法界恆名同分。「餘二」：其餘十七界皆有同分及彼同分。什麼叫同分、彼同分？作自業的名同分，不作自業的名彼同分。此中眼界對於有見之色『已見、正見、當見』的，名同分眼；如是廣說乃至意界，各於自境應說自用。迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說：彼同分眼只有四種——不見色而已滅、正滅、當滅者，及畢竟不生法。西方諸師說有五種：把「不生法」再開為二——有識屬（曾有識俱）與無識屬。乃至身界應知亦然；意界的彼同分唯是不生法〔意必有所了，起則作業〕。色界（色境）為眼「已正當見」的名同分色；彼同分色也有四種——非眼所見而已、正、當滅者，及不生法。廣說乃至觸界亦爾——各對自根應說自用。應知同分及彼同分〔的通局〕：眼若對一個有情是同分，對其餘一切有情也是同分；彼同分亦然——廣說乃至意界亦爾。色就不同：對見它的人是同分，對不見的人是彼同分。為什麼？色有『一人所見、也可多人共見』之事——如共觀月亮、舞蹈、相撲等色；眼沒有『一個眼根為兩個相續見色』之事。眼是不共的，依一相續（一有情）建立同分彼同分；色是共的，依多相續建立。如色界所說，聲香味觸應知亦爾。〔問：〕聲可以如色（共聞）；香味觸三者要「至根」方能取，是不共的——一人取了別人就取不到，理應如眼等〔依一相續〕，不應如色說。〔答：〕雖有此理，但仍「容有共」：香等三界對此人及餘人，皆有「可生鼻等識」之義〔可能性共通〕；眼等則不然〔此眼決不為他人發識〕，所以還是如色說。眼等六識，依『生法、不生法』〔分同分彼同分〕，如意界說。「同分」「彼同分」是什麼字義？根、境、識三者互相交涉，名之為「分」；或者「分」是已作之用；或者「分」是所生之觸——同有此分，故名同分。與此相違名彼同分——由於這「非同分」與彼同分者種類相同〔同一界類〕，所以名「彼同分」。同分彼同分已說。十八界中幾見所斷、幾修所斷、幾非所斷？頌說：
〔正36〕三斷門
頌：十五界唯修所斷；後三界通三種；不染污法、非六生、色，定非見所斷。
論：十五界（十色界及五識界）唯是修所斷。後三界（意、法、意識）各通三種：八十八隨眠及其俱有法、並其隨行之「得」，皆見所斷；其餘有漏皆修所斷；一切無漏皆非所斷。〔難：〕豈不是還有見所斷之法？如異生性、及招惡趣的身語業等——它們與聖道極相違〔理應見道所斷〕。〔答：〕雖然相違，此法非見所斷。略說其相：不染污法、非六生、色，定非見斷。異生性是不染污的、無記性所攝——已離欲者與斷善根者都還成就它〔故知其非染〕；這異生性若是見所斷，那麼苦法忍位的行者就應仍是異生了〔見道初念尚未捨異生性故〕。「六」謂意處；異於此而生名為「非六生」，是從眼等五根生之義，即五識等。「色」謂一切身語業等。前二者〔不染法與非六生〕以及此色，定非見斷。為什麼？因為它們不是『迷於諦理』所親自發起的。見所斷等已說。十八界中幾是「見」、幾非見？頌說：
〔正37–38〕見非見門；眼見識見之諍
頌：眼界與法界一分的八種，說名為「見」；五識俱生的慧非見——不能決度故。眼見色，是同分眼〔見〕，而非彼所依附的識〔見〕；傳說：〔若識能見〕它就不該看不見被障隔的色。
論：眼〔界〕全是見；法界一分的八種是見；其餘皆非見。哪八種？身見等五染污見（薩迦耶見、邊見、邪見、見取、戒禁取）、世間正見、有學正見、無學正見。身見等五，隨眠品中時至當說。世間正見，謂與意識相應的善有漏慧。有學正見，謂有學身中的諸無漏見；無學正見，謂無學身中的諸無漏見。譬如夜間、晝間，有雲、無雲，看眾色像明昧各異——世間諸見的有染無染、有學無學之見的觀察法相，明昧不同也是如此。為什麼世間正見唯限意識相應？因為五識俱生的慧不能決度——先審慮而後決度，才名為「見」；五識俱慧沒有這種能力，因為無分別，所以非見。以此類推，其餘染污不染污慧及其餘諸法非見，應知。
〔識家難：〕若這樣，眼根也不能決度，憑什麼名「見」？〔眼家答：〕因為它能明利地觀照諸色，所以也名見。〔識家難：〕若說是「眼」在見，那麼當其他識現行時〔眼仍在〕，也應名見〔何以不見〕？〔眼家答：〕不是一切眼都能現見。〔識家徵：〕誰能現見？〔眼家釋：〕同分眼與識合位（正與眼識俱起的眼）能見，非餘。〔識家難：〕若這樣，應是那能依的「識」在見色，不是眼。〔眼家答：〕不然，眼識決定非能見。〔識家徵：〕為什麼？〔眼家釋：〕傳說：〔識若能見〕它就不能『不觀被障之色』了——現見牆壁等所障的諸色不能被看見。〔眼家反徵：〕若是識在見，識是無對之物，牆壁不能礙它，應能見被障之色〔既實不能見，可知非識見〕。〔識家答：〕對被障之色，眼識根本不生；識既不生，怎麼會見？〔眼家總徵：〕眼識於彼為什麼不生？——我們主張眼見的可以說：眼是有對的，於被障之色沒有見的功能；而識與所依（眼）同於一境而轉，所以可說眼識於彼不生。你們主張識見的，又是什麼緣故不生呢？〔識家難：〕眼難道像身根那樣要境合方取，而說『因為有對所以不見被障』嗎？再說，玻璃、琉璃、雲母、水等所障之色為什麼能看見？所以並不是『因為眼有對，於被障色便無見功能』。〔眼家却問：〕那你們所執的眼識〔不生〕怎麼講？〔識家答：〕若彼處光明無所隔絕，對被障之色眼識也生〔隔玻璃可見〕；若彼處光明被隔絕，眼識便不生。識既不生，所以不能見。〔識家通經：〕但經中說「眼能見色」，如何？——眼是『見之所依』，所以說能見。如彼經言「意能識法」：其實不是意在識（意已過去），是意識在識；意是識之所依，故說能識。或者是『就所依說能依之業』——如世間就床座說『床在言語』〔坐床者言而曰床言〕。又如經言「眼所識色可愛可樂」——其實這可愛之色並非眼所「識」。又如經說：『梵志當知：以眼為門，唯為見色』——可知是眼識依著眼這個「門」而見；總不能說『門就是見』吧？豈容經說「以眼為見唯為見色」？〔眼家難：〕若識能見，那誰在「了別」？見與了別二用何異？〔識家釋：〕見色就是了色——譬如某一分慧，名能見也能簡擇；某一分識，名能見也能了別。〔有餘者難：〕若「眼能見」，眼是見者，那誰是「見用」？〔眼家答：〕此語不成難：如大家共許『識能了別』，卻不必另有一個「了者」——了與用不相離；見也應如此。〔有餘者又言：〕是眼識能見；因為眼是『見（眼識）之所依』，所以眼也名能見——如鐘是『鳴之所依』，故說鐘能鳴。〔眼家難：〕若這樣，眼根是『識之所依』，也應名「能識」了。〔識家答：〕沒有這種過失：世間共許「眼識是見」——當眼識生時，說『見到色了』，不說『識到色了』；《毘婆沙》中也這樣說：「若眼所得、眼識所受說名所見」所以只說眼名能見，不名能識；唯當識現前時，說「能識色」——譬如說「日」名能作晝〔日之照即晝，識之現即識色〕。經部諸師則這樣說：這是何苦來哉——大家聚在一起抓撮虛空！眼、色等緣生眼識，這裡面誰是能見、誰是所見？唯法因果，實無作用；只是為隨順世情，假立言說：「眼名能見、識名能了」——智者於中不應執著。如世尊說：『方域的言詞不應堅執，世俗的名想不應固求。』然而迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙宗說：眼能見、耳能聞、鼻能嗅、舌能嘗、身能覺、意能了。
〔問：〕見色的時候，是一隻眼在見，還是兩眼同見？這並無定準。頌說：
〔正39前半〕二眼俱見
頌：有時是二眼俱時而見——因為〔開二眼〕見色分明之故。
論：阿毘達磨諸大論師都說：有時二眼俱見——開兩眼時見色分明、只開一眼時不分明之故；又，開一眼而以手觸按另一眼時，便於現前見到二個月亮等，閉一眼觸一眼就無此事——所以有時二眼俱見。〔問：〕所依既然分在兩處，識豈不成了兩片？〔答：〕識不會因所依分開而成二分——識『住無方所』，不像有礙之色〔識非色法，無方分可裂〕。〔問：〕若依此宗說眼見、耳聞乃至意了，那諸根正取境時，是「至境」而取、還是「不至境」而取？頌說：
〔正39後半〕至不至境門；極微相觸之辯
頌：眼、耳、意三根，取「不至」之境；其餘三根與此相違〔唯取至境〕。
論：眼耳意根取非至境：眼能見遠處諸色，而眼中的眼藥等〔至眼之色〕反而看不見；耳也能聞遠處聲響，逼近耳根的反聽不到。若眼耳唯取至境，修定者就不必修生天眼天耳了——如鼻根等〔至境之根無須遠用〕。〔難：〕若眼能見不至之色，為何不能普見一切遠處、有障等不至之色？〔答：〕那磁石吸不至之鐵，為何不吸一切不至之鐵？「執見至境」也同樣有此難——為何不能普見一切至眼之色如眼藥、籌等？又如鼻等取至境，也不能取一切與根俱在的香等。所以眼雖見不至而非見一切，耳亦然。意無色體，本無「至」可言。有人執：耳根通取至、不至境——自己耳中之聲也能聽到。其餘鼻、舌、身三種有色根，與上相違，唯取至境。怎麼知道鼻唯取至香？——斷息（閉氣）時就嗅不到香。什麼叫「至」？無間而生〔中間無隔〕。〔附辯：〕那麼諸極微相觸不相觸？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說不相觸。為什麼？若諸極微全體相觸，就有「實物體相雜」之過〔二微混為一〕；若只觸一部分，就成「有分」之失——而極微是沒有更細部分的。〔難：〕不觸，為何相擊出聲？〔答：〕只因極微「無間生」之故〔逼近而不觸〕。若許相觸，擊石拍手，二物之體應互相糅雜。〔難：〕不相觸，色聚相擊為何不散？〔答：〕風界攝持故令不散——有的風界能壞散（如劫壞時）、有的風界能成攝（如劫成時）。〔問：〕那三根「無間生」怎麼叫取至境？〔答：〕就以「無間」名至——中間全無一物。又，「和合色」是許有部分的，說它相觸並無過失。由此理，《毘婆沙》文義善得成立。所以彼論問：『凡是觸物，是以觸為因而生、還是以非觸為因而生？非觸之物，問亦如此。』而就此理作不定答：有時觸因生非觸（和合物正離散時）、有時非觸因生觸（離散物正和合時）、有時觸因生觸（和合物復和合時）、有時非觸因生非觸（如飛揚的遊塵同類相續）。尊者世友說：諸極微若相觸，就應住到後念〔觸即有礙有住，違剎那滅〕。而大德（法救）說：一切極微實不相觸，只是由「無間」假立觸名。〔論主：〕這位大德之意，應可愛樂〔論主表態〕。若不是這樣，諸極微間應有間隙——中間既空，誰障其行而許它們「有對」？又，離了極微並無和合色，和合相觸就是觸極微〔和合觸則微觸，同一難〕。如「可變礙」義〔在聚不在微而說微有對〕，此〔觸〕也應如此〔在聚假說〕。又，若許極微有方分，觸與不觸皆有「有分」之失；若無方分，設許相觸也無此過。又，眼等諸根對自境是唯取等量之境（根量境量相稱）、因為轉動迅速——如旋火輪〔本是一點，急轉似輪〕——而似能見大山等呢？還是通取等量、不等量之境？頌說：
〔正40前半〕等量境；諸根極微安布
頌：應知鼻等三根，唯取等量之境。
論：前面說「取至境」的鼻舌身三根，應知唯取等量境——如根的微量，境的微量也如此，根境相稱、合而生識。眼耳不定：眼於色有時取小（如見毛端）、有時取大（如暫開目見大山）、有時取等（如見葡萄）；耳根聽蚊、雷等種種大小音聲，隨其所應或小或大或等。意無質礙，無形量差別可辨。〔附：〕眼等諸根的極微如何安布？眼根極微在眼珠之上傍布而住，如香荾花，有清澈的膜覆蓋令不分散；有人說是重疊如丸而住——體清澈故，如玻璃互不相礙。耳根極微居耳穴內旋環而住，如捲起的樺樹皮。鼻根極微居鼻頞內、背上面下，如雙爪甲。這前三根橫作行列、處無高下，如冠上的花鬘。舌根極微布在舌上，形如半月；傳說：舌中有如毛端量的一點，非舌根極微所遍。身根極微遍住身之各分，如身形量。女根極微形如「鼓𣞙」，男根極微形如「指𩎽」〔二奇字照錄原文〕。眼根極微有時一切皆是同分（全在用）、有時一切皆彼同分、有時一分彼同分餘是同分；乃至舌根極微亦爾。身根極微決無『一切皆同分』之時——乃至極熱地獄中猛焰纏身，仍有無量身根極微是彼同分〔若全身根齊發識，身即散壞〕。傳說：身根設若遍體發識，身應散壞。而且沒有『根與境各以一個極微』為所依所緣而能發身識的——五識決定要積集眾多極微，方成所依所緣之性。也就由這個道理，說極微名「無見」體——不可見之故〔單微不發眼識〕。如前所說識有六種，那麼——五識唯緣現在、意識通緣三世及非世（無為），諸識的「所依」也是這樣〔與識同世〕嗎？不然。如何？頌說：
〔正40後半〕識與所依之世
頌：後識（意識）之依唯是過去；五識之依或俱時〔或過去〕。
論：意識唯依「無間滅」的意（過去）；眼等五識的所依「或俱」——「或」字表示也依過去。眼是眼識俱生的所依，乃至身是身識俱生的所依，同在現世；而無間滅的意，是它們過去的所依。所以五識身的所依各有二：眼等五根是各別所依，意根是五識共通的所依。〔問：〕凡是眼識的「所依」，就是眼識的「等無間緣」嗎？設是等無間緣，又必是所依嗎？應作四句：第一句（是依非等無間緣）——俱生眼根；第二句（是等無間緣非依）——無間滅的心所法界；第三句（俱是）——過去意根；第四句（俱非）——除上述諸法。乃至身識亦然，各各應說自根。意識應作「順前句」答：凡是意識所依，定是意識等無間緣；有是意識等無間緣而非其所依的——無間滅的心所法界。〔問：〕識起同時依託根、境二緣，為什麼「所依」之名只在根不在境？頌說：
〔正41前半〕依名在根
頌：識隨根之變而異，所以眼等名「依」。
論：眼等即眼等六界。由眼等根有轉變（增損），諸識隨之轉異——根明利則識明、根損則識昧；而色等境之變不令識異——識是隨根、不隨境的。所以「依」名唯在眼等，不在其餘。〔問：〕色等才是所識的對象，為什麼識叫「眼識」乃至「意識」，不叫「色識」乃至「法識」？頌說：
〔正41後半〕隨根說識；四事同異地
頌：由前述「依」義、以及「不共」之因，所以隨根立識名。
論：「彼」指前面說的眼等名依——根是所依，所以隨根說識。「不共」：眼唯是自身眼識的所依；色卻通為他人眼識所取、也通為自他意識所取——乃至身與觸，應知亦爾。由『所依殊勝』及「不共」二因，識依根得名、不依境——如「鼓聲」（依鼓立名）與「麥芽」（依麥立名）。〔附辯四事之地：〕隨身所住而眼見色時，身、眼、色、識四事所屬之地為同為異？應說此四或異或同：生在欲界，若以自地眼見自地色，四皆自地；若以初靜慮眼見欲界色，身色屬欲界、眼識屬初定；見初定色，身屬欲界、餘三屬初定。若以二靜慮眼見欲界色，身色欲界、眼屬二定、識屬初定；見初定色，身屬欲界、眼屬二定、色識初定；見二定色，身屬欲界、眼色二定、識屬初定。如是若以三、四靜慮地之眼見下地色或自地色，照理應思。生初靜慮，以自地眼見自地色，四皆同地；見欲界色，三屬初定、色屬欲界。若以二靜慮眼見初定色，三屬初定、眼屬二定；見欲界色，身識初定、色屬欲界、眼屬二定；見二定色，身識初定、眼色二定。如是以三、四靜慮地眼見自地或下上色，照理應思。生二、三、四靜慮，以自他地眼見自他地色，照理應思。其餘界（耳聲等）也應如此分別。現在把這決定之相略作總辨。頌說：
〔正42–43〕四事地之決定相
頌：眼不下於身；色與識不上於眼；色對於識，一切〔等上下〕皆可；色與識對於身亦然。耳如眼例；鼻舌身三，皆唯自地；身識屬自地或下地；意則不定，應知。
論：身、眼、色三者皆通五地（欲界與四靜慮）；眼識唯在欲界與初定。此中眼根望身之生地，或等或上，終不居下；色與識望眼，或等或下、終不居上——下地之眼不能見上地之色、上地之識不依下地之眼；色望於識，通等、上、下；色與識對於身，如色對於識〔通等上下〕。廣說耳界如眼應知：耳不下於身、聲識非上於耳、聲於識一切、二者於身亦然，隨其所應，廣如眼釋。鼻舌身三，總皆自地；其中差別：身與觸其地必同；識望觸、身，或自地或下地——「自」謂生在欲界、初定〔識即自地〕，生上三定則識屬下（初定）。應知意界四事（身、意、法、意識）不定：有時四皆同地，有時上下——身唯五地，餘三通一切地；於遊歷等至（入諸定）及受生時，隨其所應或同或異，如後〈定品〉當廣分別。為省繁文，此處暫不詳辨——前後重述，用功多而益少。傍論已周，應辯正論。現在應思擇：十八界中，誰為六識中幾識所識？幾常、幾無常？幾根、幾非根？頌說：
〔正44〕所識·常·根三門（品末）
頌：五外境界為二識所識；「常」是法界中的無為；法界一分是根，加上內十二界〔中的若干〕。
論：十八界中，色等五界依次為眼等五識「各一所識」，又總為意識所識——所以這五界各是六識中「二識」所識。以此准知，其餘十三界一切唯是意識所識——非五識身的所緣境之故。十八界中沒有任何一界全體是常；唯法界一分的無為是常——以理類推，其餘的法與其餘諸界皆無常。又，經中說二十二根：眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根、女根、男根、命根、樂根、苦根、喜根、憂根、捨根、信根、勤根、念根、定根、慧根、未知當知根、已知根、具知根。阿毘達磨諸大論師都越過經中六處的次第，在命根之後才說意根——因為它「有所緣」〔與命根等不同類，另歸心法〕。這二十二根，在十八界中為內十二界及法界一分所攝：「法一分」謂命等十一——命根，與樂、苦、喜、憂、捨五受根，信、勤、念、定、慧五善根（古德疏：命、樂、苦、喜、憂、捨、信、勤、念、定、慧）——及後三根（未知當知、已知、具知）的一分，屬法界攝；「內十二」：眼等五根如自名所攝；意根通為七心界所攝；後三根的一分為意界、意識界所攝；女根、男根即身界一分所攝——如後〔根品〕當辨。以理准知，其餘色等五界及法界一分，其體皆非根。
〔Principal 26〕Three Gates: Visible and Invisible · Resistant and Nonresistant · Wholesome, Unwholesome, and Indeterminate
〔Fascicle Two begins here.〕Furthermore, among the eighteen elements stated above, how many elements are visible and how many invisible? How many are resistant and how many nonresistant? How many are wholesome, how many unwholesome, how many indeterminate? The stanza says:
Stanza: One element is visible, namely the form element; ten elements possess form and are resistant; of these ten, the eight apart from form and sound are indeterminate; the remaining elements extend to all three—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate.
Treatise: Among the eighteen elements, only the form element (the object of form) is visible—because the distinction of its being here and there can be pointed out. Extending the principle from this, all the remaining elements are invisible. Visible and invisible have now been stated. Only the ten elements included in the aggregate of form (five faculties and five objects) are resistant. Resistance has the sense of obstruction, and it is further of three kinds: resistance as obstruction, resistance of the object field, and resistance of the object of consciousness. Resistance as obstruction refers to the ten elements of form—being obstructed where another thing occupies a place, so that it cannot arise there, as hand obstructs hand, or stone obstructs stone, or hand and stone obstruct one another. Resistance of the object field refers to the twelve elements (the seven mind elements + the five faculties) and to that portion of the element of dharmas which consists of dharmas that possess an object field, with respect to the objects such as form 〔by which they are bounded〕. Thus the Treatise of Designations says: some eyes are obstructed 〔in their functioning〕 in water and not on land, such as the eyes of fish and the like; some eyes are obstructed on land and not in water—speaking for the most part—such as the eyes of humans and the like; some eyes are obstructed both in water and on land, such as the eyes of piśācas (spirits that devour vitality), śiśumāras (crocodiles), fishermen, frogs and the like; and some are neither, that is, those apart from the three preceding cases. Some eyes are obstructed at night and not by day, such as the eyes of bats and horned owls; some are obstructed by day and not at night—speaking for the most part—such as the eyes of humans and the like; some are obstructed both by day and at night, such as the eyes of dogs, jackals, horses, leopards, dholes, wolves, cats, wildcats and the like; and some are neither, apart from the preceding cases. These are named resistance of the object field. Resistance of the object of consciousness refers to mind and mental factors with respect to their own objects 〔by which they are bounded〕. And what is the difference between object field and object of consciousness? If this dharma has a capacity with respect to that dharma, then that is said to be this dharma’s object field; if mind and mental factors arise grasping that, then that, with respect to mind and the rest, is named their object of consciousness. Why is it that when the eye and the rest proceed upon their own object field and object of consciousness they are said to be obstructed? Because, once past that field, they cannot proceed anywhere else. Or else obstruction has the sense of meeting and joining—the eye and the rest proceed by meeting and joining with their own object field and object of consciousness. It should be known that in this stanza the statement is made solely with respect to resistance as obstruction, and therefore it says only that the ten that possess form are resistant—because they obstruct one another. Extending the principle from this, the remaining elements are nonresistant. 〔Question:〕 If a dharma has resistance of the object field, must it also have resistance as obstruction? A fourfold distinction should be made: the seven mind elements and the associated dharmas of one portion of the element of dharmas are the first case (resistance of the object field but not resistance as obstruction); the five objects beginning with form are the second case (resistance as obstruction but not of the object field); the five faculties beginning with the eye are the third case (both); the non-associated dharmas of one portion of the element of dharmas are the fourth case (neither). If a dharma has resistance of the object field, must it also have resistance of the object of consciousness? A following-consequent answer should be made: whatever has resistance of the object of consciousness certainly has resistance of the object field; but there are those that have resistance of the object field and not of the object of consciousness, namely the five faculties beginning with the eye. Here the venerable Kumāralāta says thus:
〔Cited stanza〕Where mind would arise, but is obstructed by another thing so that it cannot arise—know that this is what is resistant; the nonresistant is the contrary of this.
This is 〔by the author〕 accepted. Resistant and nonresistant have now been stated. Among these ten that are resistant, apart from form and sound the remaining eight elements are indeterminate—the five faculties of form and the objects of odor, taste, and the tangible cannot be determined as wholesome or unwholesome in nature, and so they are named indeterminate. Some say: because they cannot determine a result of maturation, they are named indeterminate. 〔Assessment:〕 If that were so, dharmas without outflows would all have to be indeterminate 〔since they too do not bring on a maturation〕. The remaining ten elements extend to all three, wholesome and the rest: the seven mind elements are named wholesome when associated with non-greed and the rest, unwholesome when associated with greed and the rest, and the remainder indeterminate. Within the element of dharmas, what is by its own nature, by association, or by co-origination non-greed and the rest, together with cessation through discernment, is named wholesome; what is by its own nature, by association, or by co-origination greed and the rest is named unwholesome; the remainder is indeterminate. The form element (the object of form) and the sound element are wholesome or unwholesome when they are co-originated by the force of a wholesome or unwholesome mind and are included in bodily or vocal manifest action; the remainder is indeterminate. Wholesome and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many belong to the realm of desire, how many to the realm of form, how many to the formless realm? The stanza says:
〔Principal 27〕The Gate of Affiliation with the Three Realms
Stanza: Affiliated with the realm of desire, all eighteen; affiliated with the realm of form, fourteen—excluding odor and taste and the nose and tongue consciousnesses; affiliated with the formless realm, only the last three.
Treatise: Affiliation means belonging, that is, the sense of being bound. Affiliated with the realm of desire are all eighteen elements. Affiliated with the realm of form are only fourteen kinds: excluding the two objects of odor and taste and the two consciousnesses of nose and tongue. Odor and taste are excluded because they have the nature of morsel food—one must be free of the desire for morsel food to be born in the realm of form. The nose and tongue consciousnesses are excluded because 〔odor and taste being absent there〕 they have no object. 〔Objection:〕 If so, the tangible element too ought to be absent in the realm of form—for the tangible, like odor and taste, has the nature of morsel food. 〔Answer:〕 The tangibles that exist in the realm of form are not of the nature of morsel food. 〔Objection:〕 Then odor and taste should be likewise 〔leaving behind the odor and taste that are not morsel food〕. 〔Answer:〕 Odor and taste have no other use apart from eating; the tangible has other uses—maintaining the faculties, serving as clothing, and the like. One born in that realm being free of the desire for food, odor and taste are of no use, while the faculties, clothing and the rest remain, and so the tangible is not absent. Some other masters say: when one dwells in this realm of desire and, in dependence on the meditative absorption and attainment of the realm of form, sees form and hears sound, the excellent tangible that arises together with pliancy benefits the body—and so form, sound, and the tangible, all three, follow along when one is born in that realm’s meditative absorptions, while odor and taste do not, and so are absent there. 〔Objection:〕 If so, the two faculties of nose and tongue ought not to exist there—like the objects of odor and taste, they are of no use there. 〔Answer:〕 Not so, the two faculties do have a use there: giving rise to speech and adorning the bodily form. 〔Objection:〕 If it is for adorning the body and giving rise to speech, then the bases (the shapes of nose and tongue) suffice; what need is there for the faculties? 〔Answer:〕 Just as that realm has no male faculty and therefore no base of the male faculty either—if the two faculties were absent, their bases would also be absent 〔yet the bases remain, which shows precisely that the faculties have their use〕. 〔Objection:〕 The base of the male faculty may be absent there because it is wholly useless there; but the bases of nose and tongue are useful there, and so they may still exist without the faculties 〔and the faculties are still not needed〕. 〔Answer:〕 There are also cases where the faculty arises although it has no use—as with one who is destined to die while in the womb 〔whose faculties are nevertheless complete〕; and arising without use is still not arising without a cause. 〔Challenge:〕 Then from what cause does that realm come to have those faculties? 〔Answer:〕 From craving for the faculties, which sets an excellent action in motion. 〔Objection:〕 If craving for the objects has already been left behind, craving for the faculties must also have been left behind—since that realm is free of greed for odor and taste, it should have no nose or tongue faculties. Otherwise one would also have to allow the male faculty to arise there. And if it be said that the male faculty does not arise because it is unseemly—the private organ is concealed, so where is the unseemliness? Moreover the arising of the faculties is not on account of their being useful: if the force of a cause is present, they arise even without use. 〔Assessment and refutation:〕 Even granting that the male faculty is unseemly there, if a cause were present it ought to arise there; and since the male faculty is not present, nose and tongue 〔by the same reasoning〕 ought to be absent. 〔Objection:〕 If so, this contradicts what the sūtra says of the beings of that realm: “without deficiency of limb, with no diminution of the faculties.” 〔Answer:〕 The sūtra’s intent is that whatever faculties may be had in that realm are said to be undiminished—where is the contradiction? 〔Assessment:〕 If this reading is not granted, the male faculty too would have to be present. Stated as it should be (the author’s decision): the two faculties of nose and tongue are not absent there, only odor and taste are—because craving for the six faculties arises in dependence on the inner body and does not appear in dependence on objects; whereas craving for the male faculty arises in dependence on sexual touch, and since sexual touch is absent there, the male faculty is not present. Therefore the principle that in the realm of form only fourteen of the eighteen elements exist is established. Affiliated with the formless realm are only the last three: the mind element, the element of dharmas, and the mind consciousness element. One must be free of desire for form to be born there, and so in the formless realm the ten elements of form are absent; and the supports (the five faculties) and objects (the five objects) being absent, the five consciousnesses are absent too—and so only the last three elements are affiliated with the formless. Realm affiliation has now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are with outflows and how many without? The stanza says:
〔Principal 28, first half〕The Gate of With and Without Outflows
Stanza: The three elements of mind, dharmas, and mind consciousness extend to both 〔with and without outflows〕; the rest are only with outflows.
Treatise: Of the mind element and the mind consciousness element, what is included in the truth of the path is named without outflows, and the rest is named with outflows. Of the element of dharmas, what is the truth of the path and what is unconditioned is named without outflows, and the rest with outflows. The remaining fifteen elements are named only with outflows. With and without outflows have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many have applied and sustained thought, how many have sustained thought only without applied thought, how many have neither applied nor sustained thought? The stanza says:
〔Principal 28, second half〕The Gate of Applied and Sustained Thought
Stanza: The five consciousnesses have only applied and sustained thought; the last three extend to all three classes; the rest 〔the ten elements of form〕 have neither.
Treatise: The five consciousnesses beginning with the eye have applied and sustained thought—because they are always associated with applied and sustained thought, their mode being coarse and turning toward the outer gate; this sense being fixed, the stanza places the word only. The last three are mind, dharmas, and mind consciousness—the last within each of the three classes of faculty, object, and consciousness. These last three elements all extend to the three classes: the mind element, the mind consciousness element, and 〔within the element of dharmas〕 the associated element of dharmas (excluding applied and sustained thought themselves) have applied and sustained thought in the realm of desire and in the first meditative absorption, have sustained thought only without applied thought in the intermediate meditative absorption (the intermediate absorption), and have neither applied nor sustained thought from the second meditative absorption upward through the summit of existence. The non-associated dharmas included in the element of dharmas 〔have throughout neither applied nor sustained thought〕; and the sustained thought of the intermediate meditative absorption is likewise 〔also without applied and without sustained thought〕. As for applied thought itself: at all times it has sustained thought only without applied thought—since there is no second applied thought 〔applied thought is not associated with applied thought〕 and it is associated only with sustained thought. Then what should the sustained thought of the realm of desire and the first meditative absorption be called, since the three classes do not receive it? It should be named having applied thought only without sustained thought—since there is no second sustained thought and it is associated only with applied thought. Hence it is said: in the stage that has applied and sustained thought there are four classes of dharma—first, having applied and sustained thought, namely the associated dharmas other than applied and sustained thought; second, having sustained thought only without applied thought, namely applied thought itself; third, having neither applied nor sustained thought, namely all non-associated dharmas; fourth, having applied thought only without sustained thought, namely sustained thought itself. The remaining ten elements of form have neither applied nor sustained thought, because they are never associated with applied and sustained thought. 〔Question:〕 Since the five bodies of consciousness have applied and sustained thought, why are they also said to be without discrimination? The stanza says:
〔Principal 29〕The Sense in Which the Five Consciousnesses Are Without Discrimination
Stanza: The five consciousnesses are said to be without discrimination with respect to the conceptual and the recollective kinds; these two have as their substance the diffuse discernment of the mind stage and the forms of mindfulness associated with mind consciousness.
Treatise: It is transmitted: discrimination is briefly of three kinds—intrinsic discrimination, conceptual discrimination, and recollective discrimination. The five bodies of consciousness, though they have intrinsic discrimination, lack the other two, and so are said to be without discrimination—as a horse with only one leg is named legless. Intrinsic discrimination has applied thought as its very substance, and will be distinguished below among the mental factors. The other two kinds of discrimination have, in order, the diffuse discernment of the mind stage and the forms of mindfulness as their substance: diffuse means not in absorption, and the diffuse discernment associated with mind consciousness is named conceptual discrimination; the forms of mindfulness associated with mind consciousness, whether in absorption or diffuse, are named recollective discrimination. Applied and sustained thought and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many have an object of consciousness and how many have none? How many are appropriated and how many unappropriated? The stanza says:
〔Principal 30〕Two Gates: Having an Object of Consciousness · Appropriation
Stanza: The seven mind elements and half of the element of dharmas (the mental factors) have an object of consciousness; the rest have none. The first eight elements (the seven mind elements and dharmas) and sound are unappropriated; the remaining nine extend to both.
Treatise: The six consciousnesses, the mind element, and the mental factors included in the element of dharmas are named having an object of consciousness—because they can grasp an object. The remaining ten elements of form and the non-associated dharmas included in the element of dharmas are named having no object of consciousness—which is established by extending the principle. Having an object of consciousness and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, nine are unappropriated: the first seven mind elements and the whole element of dharmas, these eight together with the sound element, are all unappropriated. The remaining nine elements (the five faculties + form, odor, taste, and the tangible) each extend to both gates, appropriated and unappropriated: the five faculties beginning with the eye are named appropriated when they abide in the present, and unappropriated when past or future; form, odor, taste, and the tangible are named appropriated when they abide in the present and are not separate from the five faculties, and unappropriated when they abide in the present but are not inseparable from the faculties, and when they are past or future—as within the body, apart from what is joined to the faculties, the hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, excrement and urine, mucus, saliva, blood and the rest, and the form, odor, taste, and tangible in the earth, water, and so forth outside the body, which, though present, are unappropriated. What is meant by appropriated? What mind and mental factors together hold and take as their base is named appropriated—because benefit and injury are passed back and forth between them; this is also what the world calls having felt contact, since when touched by an assemblage of conditions there is a feeling of pleasure and the rest. The contrary of this is named unappropriated. Appropriation and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many have the nature of great elements and how many the nature of derived form? How many are accumulable and how many not accumulable? The stanza says:
〔Principal 31〕Two Gates: Great Elements and Derived Form · Accumulation
Stanza: Within the tangible element there are two kinds (great elements and derived form); the remaining nine elements of form are only derived; one portion of the element of dharmas (nonmanifest form) is likewise; the ten elements of form are accumulable.
Treatise: The tangible element extends to both: the great elements (the four, hardness and the rest) and derived form (the seven, smoothness and the rest, named derived because they arise in dependence on the great elements). The remaining nine elements of form (the five faculties + form, sound, odor, and taste) are only derived. The nonmanifest form of action, one portion of the element of dharmas, is likewise only derived. The remaining seven mind elements and one portion of the element of dharmas (excluding nonmanifest form) are neither of the two. The venerable Juetian says thus: all ten sense fields of form have only the nature of great elements. 〔Assessment:〕 What he says is not right: the sūtras say only that the four marks of hardness, moisture, warmth, and motion are the great elements, and these four great elements are included only in the sense field of the tangible—hardness, moisture and the rest are not what the eye and the rest can grasp, and form, sound and the rest are not what the body faculty can feel; therefore what he says is definitively not so. Moreover a sūtra says: ‘Bhikṣus, know that the eye is an inner sense field, subtle form derived from the four great elements, possessing form, invisible, resistant,’ and so on at length down to the sense field of the body likewise; ‘form is an outer sense field, derived from the four great elements, possessing form, visible, resistant; sound is an outer sense field, derived from the four great elements, possessing form, invisible, resistant,’ and the two sense fields of odor and taste are expounded at length likewise; ‘the tangible is an outer sense field, being the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements, possessing form, invisible, resistant’—the sūtra speaks of including the four great elements only in the case of the sense field of the tangible, plainly showing that the remaining sense fields possessing form are not great elements. 〔Objection:〕 Then why does a sūtra also say, ‘within the fleshy lump of the eye, if internally and separately there is a hardness or a class of hardness,’ and so on at length? 〔Answer:〕 That sūtra says that hardness and the rest are within the fleshy lump not separate from the eye faculty 〔the hardness being in the lump, not in the eye faculty〕, and there is no fault of contradiction. That the Sūtra on Entry into the Womb speaks only of six elements as constituting a person is in order to display the root items that can constitute a person, and is not a restriction to these alone—for that same sūtra also speaks of the six sense fields of contact. Moreover 〔if there were only six elements〕 the mental factors would have to be nonexistent; nor may one hold that the mental factors just are mind—for the sūtra says that mental factors such as perception and feeling “rest upon mind,” and also speaks of “a mind with greed” and the like. By this, the distinction of great elements and derived form among the elements as stated above is established. The nature of great elements and the rest has now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, the ten elements possessing form, five faculties and five objects, are accumulable—because they are aggregations of ultimate atoms; extending the principle, the remaining eight are not accumulable—because they are not ultimate atoms. Accumulable and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many can cut and how many are cut? How many can burn and how many are burned? How many can be weighed and how many do the weighing? The stanza says:
〔Principal 32〕The Gates of Cutting and Being Cut · Burning and Being Burned · Weighing and Being Weighed
Stanza: Only the four outer elements (form, odor, taste, and the tangible) can cut and are cut, and are likewise what is burned and what does the weighing; as for what can burn and what is weighed, there is dispute.
Treatise: Form, odor, taste, and the tangible constitute the axe, the firewood, and the like, and this is named what cuts and what is cut. What is meant by cutting? An aggregation of form such as firewood arises in unbroken continuity, and the axe and the like separate it so that each arises in its own continuity—this is named cutting. The faculties of form such as the body are not named what is cut—it is impossible to sever one entirely into two: the body faculty and the rest cannot become two portions, for once a limb is separated from the body the faculty is no longer within it. The body faculty and the rest are also not what cuts—because they are pure and refined, like the light of a jewel 〔light cannot chop anything〕. As what cuts and what is cut are only the four outer elements, so too are what is burned and what does the weighing—only the four outer elements are named what is burned and what does the weighing; the faculties of form such as the body are likewise not these two, being pure and refined like the light of a jewel; and the sound element is entirely none of them—because it is not continuous 〔sound perishes as it arises, and has no continuous substance to be burned or weighed〕. As for what can burn and what is weighed, there are differing disputes: some say that what can burn and what is weighed are likewise, as before, only the four outer elements; others again say that only the fire element may be named what can burn, and that what is weighed is only heaviness. Cutting and being cut and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are maturation-born, how many nourished, how many of homogeneous nature, how many possessed of a real entity, how many momentary? The stanza says:
〔Principal 33–34, first half〕The Gate of the Five Classes
Stanza: The five inner elements (the five faculties) are maturation-born and nourished; sound is not maturation-born; the eight nonresistant elements (the seven mind elements and dharmas) are of homogeneous nature and also of maturation-born nature; the rest (form, odor, taste, and the tangible) extend to all three; real is only the element of dharmas; momentary is only the last three elements.
Treatise: The five inner ones are the five elements beginning with the eye; they are maturation-born and nourished, and are not of homogeneous nature—because apart from maturation-born and nourished they have no separate substance. Maturation-born: what is produced by a maturation cause is named maturation-born, as a cart drawn by an ox is named an ox-cart, the middle word being dropped. Or else: the action performed, on reaching the time of yielding its result, “alters and is able to ripen,” and so is named maturation, and the result arising from it is named maturation-born. Or else: the result obtained from it is of a different class from its cause and is what is ripened, and so is named maturation. Or else: the name of the result is provisionally established upon the cause—just as the name of the cause is provisionally established upon the result, as a sūtra says: ‘the six sense fields of contact now present should be known to be the actions performed of old’ 〔an instance of establishing the name of the cause upon the result〕. Nourished: what is augmented by excellent conditions such as food and drink, assistance (anointing and bathing), sleep, and concentration (absorption) is named nourished. Some say that celibate conduct can also nourish. 〔Assessment:〕 Celibate conduct is merely non-injury, and is not a separate augmenting. The continuum of what is nourished constantly protects the continuum of maturation, as an outer wall guards an inner city. Sound is of homogeneous nature and nourished, and is not maturation-born. Why? Because it proceeds according to wish 〔one makes a sound when one wishes to, whereas a maturation does not follow a present wish〕. 〔Objection:〕 If so, it ought not to be as the Treatise of Designations says, that through well cultivating the avoidance of harsh speech one obtains the mark of the great man’s voice of Brahmā 〔is sound then not a result of action?〕. 〔First answer:〕 Some say: because sound belongs to a third remove, it arises from that action yet is not a maturation—that is, from that action the great elements arise, and from the great elements, being struck, sound is produced. 〔Second answer:〕 Some say: because sound belongs to a fifth remove, it arises from that action yet is not a maturation—that is, that action produces maturation-born great elements, from these are produced in turn nourished great elements, from these in turn homogeneous great elements, and these then produce sound. 〔Assessment:〕 If so, bodily feeling also arises from great elements produced by action, and would also have to be no maturation; and if feeling were treated like sound, correct principle would be contradicted. The eight nonresistant (the seven mind elements and the element of dharmas) are of homogeneous nature and of maturation-born nature: what is produced by the homogeneous cause and the all-pervading cause is of homogeneous nature, and what is drawn forth by the maturation cause is named maturation-born; and the nonresistant dharmas, having no accumulation, are not nourished. The rest means the remaining four—form, odor, taste, and the tangible—which all extend to the three kinds: some maturation-born, some nourished, some of homogeneous nature. Real is only dharmas: real means the unconditioned, on account of its firmness and solidity; and the unconditioned is included only in the element of dharmas, and so only the element of dharmas is named possessed of a real entity. Momentary: mind, dharmas, and mind consciousness are named the last three (being stated last within the three classes of the six elements); only these three elements have a momentary dharma, namely the class of the first receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering, which is without outflows—because it is not of homogeneous nature it is named momentary 〔nothing homogeneous precedes it, and it arises alone for a single moment〕. This is said of what is definitively not homogeneous; among the remaining conditioned dharmas there is none that is not homogeneous. The mind associated with the receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering is named the mind element and the mind consciousness element; the remaining dharmas arising together with it are named the element of dharmas. Maturation-born and the rest have now been stated. Now it should be considered: if the eye element was not previously accomplished and is now accomplished, is eye consciousness likewise? If the eye consciousness element was not previously accomplished and is now accomplished, is the eye element likewise? Questions of this kind should now be answered briefly. The stanza says:
〔Principal 34, second half〕The Acquisition and Possession of the Eye Element and the Eye Consciousness Element: A Fourfold Distinction
Stanza: Of the eye element and the eye consciousness element there is acquisition of one alone, of both, and of neither; possession should likewise, as the word and the rest indicates, be worked out in a fourfold distinction.
Treatise: Acquisition of one alone: there are cases where the eye element was not previously accomplished and is now accomplished while eye consciousness is not—as when one born in the realm of desire gradually acquires the eye faculty, or when one dies in the formless realm and is born in the second, third, or fourth meditative absorption levels 〔where eye consciousness must be borrowed from the first absorption〕. And there are cases where eye consciousness was not previously accomplished and is now accomplished while the eye element is not—as when one born in the second, third, or fourth absorption levels has eye consciousness arise, or dies there and is born in a lower level. Acquisition of both: there are cases where the two elements were both previously unaccomplished and are now both acquired—as when one dies in the formless realm and is born in the realm of desire or in the Brahmā world. Acquisition of neither: apart from the preceding cases. And the rest means: if one possesses the eye element, does one also possess eye consciousness? A fourfold distinction should be made: the first case (possessing the eye element but not eye consciousness) is one born in the second, third, or fourth absorption levels when eye consciousness is not arising; the second case (possessing eye consciousness but not the eye element) is one born in the realm of desire who has not yet acquired the eye faculty, or who acquired it and has lost it again; the third case (possessing both) is one born in the realm of desire who has acquired the eye and not lost it, one born in the Brahmā world, and one born in the second, third, or fourth absorption levels while actually seeing form; the fourth case (possessing neither) is apart from the preceding cases. The acquisition and possession of the eye element and the form element, and of eye consciousness and the form element, should be thought through on the same principle—and to gather in these unstated senses the stanza says the single word and the rest. Acquisition and possession and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are inner and how many outer? The stanza says:
〔Principal 35, first half〕The Gate of Inner and Outer
Stanza: Inner are the twelve elements beginning with the eye (six faculties and six consciousnesses); the six objects beginning with form are outer.
Treatise: The six faculties and six consciousnesses, twelve elements, are named inner; the remaining six objects beginning with form are outer. 〔Question:〕 Inner and outer are established with reference to a self (what the self depends on is named inner, and what is other than this is outer); since there is no substance of a self, whence are inner and outer? 〔Answer:〕 Because it is what the grasping of a self rests upon, mind is provisionally spoken of as the self. Thus a sūtra says:
〔Cited stanza〕Through well taming the self, the wise attain birth in heaven.
While the World-Honored One says elsewhere that it is mind that is tamed, as a sūtra says:
〔Cited stanza〕One should well tame the mind; mind tamed can draw on ease.
So it is only with respect to mind that a self is provisionally spoken of. The faculties beginning with the eye are what this provisional self (mind) depends on and are near to it, and so are named inner; form and the rest are its objects of consciousness and are remote, and so are named outer. 〔Objection:〕 If so, the six consciousnesses ought not to be named inner—they have not yet reached the position of mind (have not yet become past) and are not what mind (as mind element) depends on. 〔Answer:〕 When the six consciousnesses reach the position of mind they do not lose the nature of the six consciousness elements, and before they reach that position they have never departed from the mark of mind 〔their very nature is to be the mind that is to come〕. Were it not so, the mind element would exist only in the past and the six consciousnesses only in the present and future, contradicting our own school’s tenet that the eighteen elements all extend to the three times. Moreover, if the future and present six consciousnesses lacked the mark of the mind element, the past mind element could not be established either—for the marks of a dharma do not alter across the three times. Inner and outer have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are participating and how many corresponding nonparticipants? The stanza says:
〔Principal 35, second half〕The Gate of Participating and Corresponding Nonparticipant
Stanza: The element of dharmas alone is participating; the remaining seventeen elements extend to both, participating and corresponding nonparticipant—divided according to whether they perform their own work or not.
Treatise: The participating element of dharmas: the single element of dharmas alone is throughout participating. If an object is definitely made an object of consciousness by a consciousness, and a consciousness has already arisen or will certainly arise upon it (a dharma that arises), then that object is named participating. And there is no portion whatever of the element of dharmas upon which boundless mind consciousnesses have not arisen, are not arising, and will not arise—because the noble ones certainly give rise to the mind that “contemplates all dharmas as being without self”; this mind, apart from its own substance and the dharmas coexisting with it, takes all dharmas as its objects, and the portion excluded is in turn the object of the second moment of mind. These two successive moments of mind take all objects without exception, and therefore the element of dharmas is always named participating. The remaining two: the remaining seventeen elements all have both participation and corresponding nonparticipation. What is meant by participating and corresponding nonparticipant? What performs its own work is named participating; what does not perform its own work is named a corresponding nonparticipant. Here the eye element with respect to visible form that it has seen, is seeing, or will see is named a participating eye; and so on at length up to the mind element, each with respect to its own object, of which its own function should be stated. The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say that the corresponding nonparticipant eye is of four kinds only—that which does not see form and has already ceased, is ceasing, or will cease, and that which definitively will not arise. The masters of the West say there are five kinds: dividing what will not arise further into two—that which has an accompanying consciousness (that once had consciousness with it) and that which has none. And so on down to the body element, as should be known; the corresponding nonparticipant of the mind element is only what will not arise 〔mind must have something it cognizes; when it arises it performs its work〕. The form element (the object of form) that the eye has seen, is seeing, or will see is named participating form; the corresponding nonparticipant form is likewise of four kinds—that which is not seen by an eye and has already ceased, is ceasing, or will cease, and that which will not arise. And so on at length to the tangible element likewise—each with respect to its own faculty, of which its own function should be stated. The extent 〔and the limits〕 of participation and corresponding nonparticipation should be known: if an eye is participating with respect to one sentient being, it is participating with respect to all other sentient beings as well, and the same holds for the corresponding nonparticipant—and so on at length to the mind element likewise. Form is not so: with respect to one who sees it, it is participating; with respect to one who does not see it, it is a corresponding nonparticipant. Why? Because with form there is the case of being seen by one person and also seen in common by many—as when people gaze together at the moon, at dancing, at wrestling and the like; whereas with the eye there is no case of one eye faculty seeing form for two continua. The eye is not held in common, and participation and corresponding nonparticipation are established with respect to a single continuum (a single sentient being); form is held in common, and they are established with respect to many continua. As stated for the form element, so should it be known for sound, odor, taste, and the tangible. 〔Question:〕 Sound may indeed be like form (heard in common); but the three of odor, taste, and the tangible must reach the faculty to be grasped and are not held in common—if one person grasps them another cannot, and so in principle they should be like the eye and the rest 〔established with respect to a single continuum〕 and should not be stated as with form. 〔Answer:〕 Although there is that principle, they still admit of being held in common: the three elements of odor and the rest have, with respect to this person and to others, the sense of being able to give rise to nose consciousness and the rest 〔the possibility is common〕; the eye and the rest are not so 〔this eye will never generate consciousness for another person〕, and so they are still stated as with form. As for the six consciousnesses beginning with the eye, they are 〔divided into participating and corresponding nonparticipant〕 according to whether they are dharmas that arise or dharmas that do not arise, as was said of the mind element. What is the word-sense of participating and corresponding nonparticipant? Faculty, object, and consciousness, all three, interact with one another, and this is named a share; or share is the function already performed; or share is the contact produced—having this share in common, it is named participating. The contrary of this is named a corresponding nonparticipant—because this nonparticipant shares a class in common with what participates 〔being of the same class of element〕, it is named a corresponding nonparticipant. Participating and corresponding nonparticipant have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are abandoned through seeing, how many abandoned through cultivation, how many not subject to abandonment? The stanza says:
〔Principal 36〕The Gate of the Three Abandonings
Stanza: Fifteen elements are abandoned only through cultivation; the last three extend to all three kinds; dharmas that are undefiled, what is not born of the sixth, and form are definitively not abandoned through seeing.
Treatise: The fifteen elements (the ten elements of form and the five consciousness elements) are abandoned only through cultivation. The last three (mind, dharmas, mind consciousness) each extend to the three kinds: the eighty-eight latent tendencies together with the dharmas coexisting with them and the acquisitions that accompany them are all abandoned through seeing; the remaining dharmas with outflows are all abandoned through cultivation; all dharmas without outflows are not subject to abandonment. 〔Objection:〕 Are there not further dharmas abandoned through seeing? Such as ordinary-being status, and the bodily and vocal actions that bring on evil destinies—these are utterly contrary to the noble path 〔and so in principle should be abandoned by the path of seeing〕. 〔Answer:〕 Although they are contrary, these dharmas are not abandoned through seeing. Briefly stated, their marks are: dharmas that are undefiled, what is not born of the sixth, and form are definitively not abandoned through seeing. Ordinary-being status is undefiled and is included in the indeterminate—for both one who has left desire behind and one who has severed the wholesome roots still possess it 〔which shows it is not defiled〕; and if this ordinary-being status were abandoned through seeing, then one in the position of the receptivity to the cognition of dharma concerning suffering would still be an ordinary being 〔since at the first moment of the path of seeing it has not yet been discarded〕. The sixth means the mind sense field; what is born otherwise than from this is named not born of the sixth, that is, born from the five faculties beginning with the eye, namely the five consciousnesses and the like. Form means all bodily and vocal action and the like. The first two 〔undefiled dharmas and what is not born of the sixth〕 together with this form are definitively not abandoned through seeing. Why? Because they are not directly set in motion by delusion about the principle of the truths. Abandonment through seeing and the rest have now been stated. Among the eighteen elements, how many are seeing and how many are not? The stanza says:
〔Principal 37–38〕The Gate of Seeing and Not Seeing; the Dispute over Whether the Eye Sees or Consciousness Sees
Stanza: The eye element and eight kinds within one portion of the element of dharmas are said to be seeing; the discernment arising together with the five consciousnesses is not seeing—because it cannot make a decisive judgment. What sees form is the participating eye 〔that sees〕, and not the consciousness that depends on it 〔that sees〕; it is transmitted that 〔if consciousness saw〕 it ought not to fail to see forms that are screened off.
Treatise: The eye 〔element〕 is wholly seeing; eight kinds within one portion of the element of dharmas are seeing; the rest are all not seeing. Which eight? The five defiled views beginning with the view of self (the view of a real person, the extreme view, wrong view, adherence to views, adherence to observances and vows), worldly right view, the right view of one in training, and the right view of one beyond training. The five beginning with the view of self will be spoken of in due course in the chapter on the latent tendencies. Worldly right view is the wholesome discernment with outflows associated with mind consciousness. The right view of one in training is the views without outflows in the continuum of one in training; the right view of one beyond training is the views without outflows in the continuum of one beyond training. Just as by night and by day, with clouds and without, the multitude of forms and images are seen with differing clarity and dimness—so too do worldly views defiled and undefiled, and the views of those in training and beyond training, differ in the clarity and dimness with which they observe the marks of dharmas. Why is worldly right view restricted to what is associated with mind consciousness? Because the discernment arising together with the five consciousnesses cannot make a decisive judgment—only what deliberates first and then judges decisively is named seeing; the discernment arising with the five consciousnesses has no such capacity, being without discrimination, and so it is not seeing. Extending the principle from this, it should be known that the remaining discernments, defiled and undefiled, and the remaining dharmas are not seeing.
〔The consciousness-sees party objects:〕 If so, the eye faculty likewise cannot make a decisive judgment—on what ground is it named seeing? 〔The eye-sees party answers:〕 Because it can clearly and sharply illuminate and observe forms, it too is named seeing. 〔The consciousness-sees party objects:〕 If it is the eye that sees, then when another consciousness is operating 〔the eye being still present〕 it too ought to be named seeing 〔why does it not see then?〕. 〔The eye-sees party answers:〕 Not every eye is able to see actually. 〔The consciousness-sees party presses:〕 Which is able to see actually? 〔The eye-sees party explains:〕 The participating eye in the state of being joined with consciousness (the eye that is arising together with eye consciousness) is able to see, and no other. 〔The consciousness-sees party objects:〕 If so, it must be the dependent consciousness that sees form, and not the eye. 〔The eye-sees party answers:〕 Not so; eye consciousness is definitively not what sees. 〔The consciousness-sees party presses:〕 Why? 〔The eye-sees party explains:〕 It is transmitted: 〔if consciousness saw〕 it could not fail to observe forms that are screened off—yet it is directly observed that forms screened off by a wall and the like cannot be seen. 〔The eye-sees party presses back:〕 If it is consciousness that sees, then since consciousness is nonresistant a wall cannot obstruct it, and it ought to see the screened-off forms 〔and since in fact it cannot see them, it is evident that consciousness does not see〕. 〔The consciousness-sees party answers:〕 With respect to a screened-off form, eye consciousness simply does not arise; and since consciousness does not arise, how should it see? 〔The eye-sees party presses in summary:〕 Why does eye consciousness not arise with respect to it?—We who hold that the eye sees can say: the eye is resistant, and with respect to a screened-off form it has no capacity for seeing; and since consciousness proceeds upon the same object as its support, it may be said that eye consciousness does not arise there. But you who hold that consciousness sees—for what reason does it not arise? 〔The consciousness-sees party objects:〕 Is the eye then like the body faculty, grasping only when it meets its object, that you say it does not see the screened-off because it is resistant? Moreover, why can forms screened off by crystal, beryl, mica, water and the like be seen? So it is not because the eye is resistant that it has no capacity for seeing screened-off form. 〔The eye-sees party asks in return:〕 If so, what of the eye consciousness that you maintain 〔which does not arise〕? 〔The consciousness-sees party answers:〕 Where the brightness is not cut off, eye consciousness does arise with respect to the screened-off form 〔one can see through crystal〕; where the brightness is cut off, eye consciousness does not arise. And since consciousness does not arise, it cannot see. 〔The consciousness-sees party reconciles the sūtra:〕 But the sūtra says “the eye can see form”—how so?—The eye is what seeing depends on, and so it is said to see. As that sūtra says, “the mind can cognize dharmas”: in fact it is not the mind that cognizes (the mind has already passed), but mind consciousness; the mind is what consciousness depends on, and so it is said to cognize. Or else it is stating the action of the dependent in terms of what it depends on—as the world says of a bench that “the bench is talking” 〔one who sits on the bench talks, and it is said that the bench talks〕. Again the sūtra says “forms cognized by the eye are lovely and delightful”—yet such lovely forms are not what the eye cognizes. Again the sūtra says: ‘Brahmin, know that the eye is the gate, and it is solely for seeing form’—from which it is evident that eye consciousness sees by way of the gate that is the eye; one surely cannot say that ‘the gate is the seeing.’ How could the sūtra say ‘taking the eye as the seeing, solely for seeing form’? 〔The eye-sees party objects:〕 If consciousness can see, then who does the cognizing? And how do the two functions of seeing and cognizing differ? 〔The consciousness-sees party explains:〕 To see form is to cognize form—just as a certain portion of discernment is named able to see and is also able to discern, so a certain portion of consciousness is named able to see and is also able to cognize. 〔Some others object:〕 If the eye can see, the eye is the seer—then what is the act of seeing? 〔The eye-sees party answers:〕 This makes no objection: just as all grant that consciousness can cognize while there is no separate cognizer—the cognizing and the act are not separate—so it should be with seeing. 〔Some others further say:〕 It is eye consciousness that sees; and because the eye is what the seeing (eye consciousness) depends on, the eye too is named able to see—as a bell is what the ringing depends on, and so the bell is said to be able to ring. 〔The eye-sees party objects:〕 If so, then since the eye faculty is what consciousness depends on, it ought also to be named able to cognize. 〔The consciousness-sees party answers:〕 There is no such fault: the world commonly grants that eye consciousness is the seeing—when eye consciousness arises one says ‘I have seen the form,’ not ‘I have cognized the form’; and the Mahāvibhāṣā also says thus: 「若眼所得、眼識所受說名所見」 tr. “what is obtained by the eye and received by eye consciousness is called what is seen,” and so one says only that the eye can see and not that the eye can cognize; only when consciousness is present does one say ‘it cognizes form’—as one says that the sun ‘makes the day’ 〔the sun’s shining is the day, as consciousness’s presence is the cognizing of form〕. The Sautrāntika masters then say thus: why all this trouble—a crowd gathered to clutch at empty space! Eye, form, and the rest as conditions give rise to eye consciousness; within this, which is the seer and which the seen? There are only dharmas as cause and result, and in fact no agent function; it is merely to accord with worldly feeling that expressions are provisionally set up—“the eye is named able to see, consciousness is named able to cognize”—and the wise should not fasten upon them. As the World-Honored One said: ‘The words of a region are not to be held to rigidly; the name-ideations of convention are not to be insisted upon.’ Yet the Vaibhāṣika school of Kaśmīra says: the eye can see, the ear can hear, the nose can smell, the tongue can taste, the body can feel, the mind can cognize.
〔Question:〕 When form is seen, is it one eye that sees or do two eyes see together? There is no fixed rule. The stanza says:
〔Principal 39, first half〕The Two Eyes See Together
Stanza: Sometimes two eyes see together—because 〔with two eyes open〕 form is seen distinctly.
Treatise: The great masters of Abhidharma all say: sometimes two eyes see together—because when both eyes are open form is seen distinctly, and when only one is open it is not distinct; moreover, when one eye is open and one presses the other with the hand, one then sees two moons and the like before one, whereas closing one eye and pressing one has no such effect—therefore sometimes two eyes see together. 〔Question:〕 If the support is divided into two places, does consciousness not become two pieces? 〔Answer:〕 Consciousness does not become two portions because its support is divided—consciousness abides in no location, and is unlike resistant form 〔consciousness is not a dharma of form and has no spatial parts to be split〕. 〔Question:〕 If, according to this school, the eye sees, the ear hears, and so on to the mind cognizing, then when the faculties actually grasp their objects, do they grasp by reaching the object or without reaching it? The stanza says:
〔Principal 39, second half〕The Gate of Reaching and Not Reaching the Object; the Debate on Whether Ultimate Atoms Touch
Stanza: The three faculties of eye, ear, and mind grasp objects not reached; the other three are the contrary of this 〔grasping only objects reached〕.
Treatise: The faculties of eye, ear, and mind grasp objects not reached: the eye can see forms at a distance, whereas eye-salve and the like within the eye 〔forms that have reached the eye〕 are on the contrary not seen; the ear too can hear sounds at a distance, whereas what is pressed close against the ear faculty is on the contrary not heard. If eye and ear grasped only objects reached, then one who cultivates absorption would have no need to cultivate the production of the divine eye and divine ear—like the nose faculty and the rest 〔faculties of objects reached, which need no distant range〕. 〔Objection:〕 If the eye can see form not reached, why can it not see all distant forms, or forms screened off and otherwise not reached? 〔Answer:〕 Why does a lodestone that draws iron not reached not draw all iron not reached? The claim that seeing grasps objects reached has the same difficulty—why can it not see all forms that have reached the eye, such as eye-salve, a stick and the like? And likewise the nose and the rest, which grasp objects reached, cannot grasp all the odors and the rest that are present together with the faculty. Therefore, though the eye sees what is not reached, it does not see everything, and so with the ear. The mind has no substance of form, and so of it there is no reaching at all. Some hold: the ear faculty grasps both reached and not-reached objects—since one can also hear the sound within one’s own ear. The remaining three faculties possessing form, nose, tongue, and body, are the contrary of the above, grasping only objects reached. How is it known that the nose grasps only odor reached? Because when the breath is held one cannot smell an odor. What is meant by reached? Arising without interval 〔with nothing intervening between them〕. 〔Appended debate:〕 Then do ultimate atoms touch one another or not? The Vaibhāṣikas of Kaśmīra say they do not touch. Why? If ultimate atoms touched throughout their whole substance, there would be the fault of the substances of real things being commingled 〔two atoms merging into one〕; if they touched only in one portion, there would be the fault of having parts—yet an ultimate atom has no finer parts. 〔Objection:〕 If they do not touch, why does striking them produce sound? 〔Answer:〕 Only because ultimate atoms arise without interval 〔they come close without touching〕. If touching were granted, then in striking stones or clapping hands the substances of the two would have to be commingled. 〔Objection:〕 If they do not touch, why does an aggregation of form not scatter when struck? 〔Answer:〕 Because the wind element holds it, it does not scatter—some wind elements can destroy and scatter (as at the destruction of an aeon), and some can form and hold together (as at the formation of an aeon). 〔Question:〕 Then how are the three faculties said to grasp objects reached by arising without interval? 〔Answer:〕 Just this without interval is named reaching—there being nothing whatever in between. Moreover, conjoined form is granted to have parts, and to say that it touches involves no fault. On this principle the sense of the Mahāvibhāṣā’s text is well established. Thus that treatise asks: ‘Whatever thing touches, is it produced with touching as its cause or with non-touching as its cause? And of things not touching, the question is the same.’ And on this principle it gives an indeterminate answer: sometimes touching produces non-touching (when a conjoined thing is in the act of separating), sometimes non-touching produces touching (when separated things are in the act of conjoining), sometimes touching produces touching (when a conjoined thing conjoins again), sometimes non-touching produces non-touching (as with floating motes of dust continuing in their own kind). The venerable Vasumitra says: if ultimate atoms touched one another, they would have to abide into the following moment 〔touching implies resistance and abiding, contradicting momentary cessation〕. And the venerable one (Dharmatrāta) says: no ultimate atoms in fact touch one another; the name touching is merely provisionally established upon their being without interval. 〔The author:〕 This venerable one’s intent should be found agreeable 〔the author declares himself〕. Were it not so, there would have to be gaps between the ultimate atoms—and the space between being empty, what obstructs their movement, that they should be granted to be resistant? Moreover, apart from ultimate atoms there is no conjoined form, and for a conjoined form to touch is for ultimate atoms to touch 〔if the conjoined touches, the atoms touch, and the difficulty is the same〕. As with the sense of being liable to resistant deformation 〔which is in the aggregation and not in the atom, and yet the atom is said to be resistant〕, so it should be here too with 〔touching〕 〔spoken provisionally of the aggregation〕. Moreover, if ultimate atoms are granted to have spatial parts, then whether they touch or not there is the fault of having parts; if they have no spatial parts, then even granting that they touch there is no such fault. Again, do the faculties beginning with the eye grasp only an object equal in measure to themselves (the measure of the faculty matching the measure of the object)—because they revolve so swiftly, like a whirling firebrand 〔which is a single point, yet whirled swiftly appears as a wheel〕—so that they seem able to see a great mountain and the like? Or do they grasp objects both equal and unequal in measure? The stanza says:
〔Principal 40, first half〕Objects of Equal Measure; the Arrangement of the Ultimate Atoms of the Faculties
Stanza: It should be known that the three faculties beginning with the nose grasp only objects of equal measure.
Treatise: The three faculties of nose, tongue, and body, which were said above to grasp objects reached, should be known to grasp only objects of equal measure—as is the measure of the faculty’s atoms, so is the measure of the object’s atoms, and matching one another they conjoin and produce consciousness. Eye and ear are not fixed: the eye with respect to form sometimes grasps something small (as in seeing the tip of a hair), sometimes something large (as in briefly opening the eyes and seeing a great mountain), sometimes something equal (as in seeing a grape); the ear hears sounds of all sizes, of a mosquito, of thunder and the rest, grasping as is fitting something small, large, or equal. The mind has no resistant substance, and no distinction of shape or measure can be told of it. 〔Appended:〕 How are the ultimate atoms of the faculties beginning with the eye arranged? The ultimate atoms of the eye faculty abide spread out over the pupil, like a coriander blossom, with a clear membrane covering them so that they do not scatter; some say they abide heaped up like a ball—being clear in substance, they do not obstruct one another, like crystal. The ultimate atoms of the ear faculty abide coiled round within the ear cavity, like a rolled sheet of birch bark. The ultimate atoms of the nose faculty abide within the bridge of the nose, back upward and face downward, like a pair of fingernails. These three faculties are set out crosswise in a row, their places without high and low, like a garland of flowers on a crown. The ultimate atoms of the tongue faculty are spread over the tongue, in the shape of a half-moon; it is transmitted that there is within the tongue a point the measure of a hair’s tip that the ultimate atoms of the tongue faculty do not cover. The ultimate atoms of the body faculty abide throughout the parts of the body, as the body’s shape and measure. The ultimate atoms of the female faculty have the shape of 「鼓𣞙」 tr. “a drum-shape,” and those of the male faculty the shape of 「指𩎽」 tr. “a finger-shape” 〔the two rare graphs are reproduced exactly as in the original〕. The ultimate atoms of the eye faculty are sometimes all participating, sometimes all corresponding nonparticipants, sometimes one portion corresponding nonparticipants and the rest participating; and so on down to the ultimate atoms of the tongue faculty likewise. The ultimate atoms of the body faculty are never all participating—even in the hottest hell, with fierce flames wrapping the body, there are still measureless ultimate atoms of the body faculty that are corresponding nonparticipants 〔for if the whole body faculty generated consciousness at once, the body would break apart〕. It is transmitted: if the body faculty were to generate consciousness throughout, the body would break apart. Moreover, there is no case in which a faculty and an object, each by a single ultimate atom, serve as support and object of consciousness so as to generate body consciousness—the five consciousnesses definitively require an accumulation of many ultimate atoms before the nature of support and object is constituted. And it is by this very principle that ultimate atoms are said to have an invisible substance—because they cannot be seen 〔a single atom does not generate eye consciousness〕. As was said above, consciousness is of six kinds; then—the five consciousnesses take only the present as object while mind consciousness takes the three times and what is beyond time (the unconditioned) as object—are the supports of the consciousnesses likewise 〔of the same time as the consciousness〕? They are not. How then? The stanza says:
〔Principal 40, second half〕The Times of Consciousness and Its Support
Stanza: The support of the last consciousness (mind consciousness) is only past; the supports of the five consciousnesses are either simultaneous 〔or past〕.
Treatise: Mind consciousness depends only on the mind that has ceased without interval (the past); the supports of the five consciousnesses beginning with the eye are either simultaneous—the word either indicates that they also depend on the past. The eye is the support arising together with eye consciousness, and so on to the body being the support arising together with body consciousness, both being in the present world; while the mind that has ceased without interval is their past support. Therefore the supports of the five bodies of consciousness are two each: the five faculties beginning with the eye are their several separate supports, and the mind faculty is the support common to the five. 〔Question:〕 Is whatever is a support of eye consciousness also the immediately antecedent condition of eye consciousness? And granting something is its immediately antecedent condition, must it be its support? A fourfold distinction should be made: the first case (a support but not an immediately antecedent condition)—the eye faculty arising together with it; the second case (an immediately antecedent condition but not a support)—the element of dharmas of mental factors that has ceased without interval; the third case (both)—the past mind faculty; the fourth case (neither)—apart from the dharmas just stated. And so on down to body consciousness likewise, each with its own faculty to be stated. For mind consciousness a following-antecedent answer should be made: whatever is a support of mind consciousness is definitively its immediately antecedent condition; but there is what is its immediately antecedent condition and not its support—the element of dharmas of mental factors that has ceased without interval. 〔Question:〕 Consciousness arises depending at once on the two conditions of faculty and object; why then does the name support fall on the faculty and not on the object? The stanza says:
〔Principal 41, first half〕The Name Support Falls on the Faculty
Stanza: Consciousness differs as the faculty alters, and therefore the eye and the rest are named its support.
Treatise: The eye and the rest means the six elements beginning with the eye. Because the faculties beginning with the eye undergo alteration (augmentation or damage), the consciousnesses alter accordingly—when the faculty is clear and sharp the consciousness is clear, when the faculty is damaged the consciousness is dim; whereas alteration in the objects beginning with form does not make the consciousness differ—consciousness follows the faculty, not the object. Therefore the name support falls only on the eye and the rest, and not on the others. 〔Question:〕 It is form and the rest that are the objects cognized; why then is consciousness called eye consciousness and so on to mind consciousness, and not form consciousness and so on to dharma consciousness? The stanza says:
〔Principal 41, second half〕Consciousness Named after the Faculty; the Levels of the Four Things, Same or Different
Stanza: By the sense of support stated above, and by the cause of not being held in common, consciousness is named after the faculty.
Treatise: Those refers to the eye and the rest named support above—the faculty is what is depended on, and so consciousness is named after the faculty. Not held in common: the eye is the support only of one’s own eye consciousness; whereas form may be grasped by another’s eye consciousness and by the mind consciousness of oneself and of others—and so on to the body and the tangible, as should be known. By the two causes of the excellence of the support and not being held in common, consciousness takes its name from the faculty and not from the object—as with the sound of a drum (named after the drum) and a barley sprout (named after the barley). 〔Appended discussion of the levels of the four things:〕 According to the level in which the body dwells, when the eye sees form, are the levels to which the four things—body, eye, form, and consciousness—belong the same or different? It should be said that these four are either different or the same. Born in the realm of desire: if one sees form of one’s own level with an eye of one’s own level, all four are of one’s own level; if one sees form of the realm of desire with the eye of the first meditative absorption, body and form belong to the realm of desire and eye and consciousness to the first absorption; if one sees form of the first absorption, the body belongs to the realm of desire and the other three to the first absorption. If one sees form of the realm of desire with the eye of the second absorption, body and form belong to the realm of desire, the eye to the second absorption, and consciousness to the first; if one sees form of the first absorption, the body belongs to the realm of desire, the eye to the second absorption, and form and consciousness to the first; if one sees form of the second absorption, the body belongs to the realm of desire, eye and form to the second absorption, and consciousness to the first. Likewise, if one sees lower-level or own-level form with the eye of the third or fourth absorption levels, it should be thought out on the same principle. Born in the first meditative absorption: seeing form of one’s own level with an eye of one’s own level, all four are of the same level; seeing form of the realm of desire, three belong to the first absorption and the form to the realm of desire. If one sees form of the first absorption with the eye of the second, three belong to the first absorption and the eye to the second; seeing form of the realm of desire, body and consciousness belong to the first absorption, form to the realm of desire, and the eye to the second; seeing form of the second absorption, body and consciousness belong to the first absorption and eye and form to the second. Likewise, seeing form of one’s own level or of lower or higher levels with the eye of the third or fourth absorption levels, it should be thought out on the same principle. Born in the second, third, or fourth absorptions, seeing form of one’s own or another level with an eye of one’s own or another level, it should be thought out on the same principle. The remaining elements (ear and sound and the rest) should be distinguished likewise. Now the decisive marks of this are stated briefly together. The stanza says:
〔Principal 42–43〕The Decisive Marks of the Levels of the Four Things
Stanza: The eye is not lower than the body; form and consciousness are not higher than the eye; form with respect to consciousness may be any 〔equal, higher, or lower〕; form and consciousness with respect to the body are likewise. The ear follows the pattern of the eye; the three of nose, tongue, and body are all only of their own level; body consciousness belongs to its own level or a lower one; the mind is not fixed, as should be known.
Treatise: Body, eye, and form all extend over five levels (the realm of desire and the four meditative absorptions); eye consciousness exists only in the realm of desire and the first absorption. Here the eye faculty, with respect to the level in which the body is born, is either equal or higher, and is never lower; form and consciousness with respect to the eye are either equal or lower, and never higher—a lower-level eye cannot see higher-level form, and a higher-level consciousness does not depend on a lower-level eye; form with respect to consciousness extends to equal, higher, and lower; and form and consciousness with respect to the body are as form is with respect to consciousness 〔extending to equal, higher, and lower〕. The ear element expounded at length should be known as with the eye: the ear is not lower than the body, sound and consciousness are not higher than the ear, sound with respect to consciousness may be any, and the two with respect to the body likewise, as is fitting, expounded at length as with the eye. The three of nose, tongue, and body are all of their own level; among them the distinction is that body and the tangible must be of the same level; consciousness with respect to the tangible and the body is either of its own level or of a lower one—own meaning one born in the realm of desire or the first absorption 〔where consciousness is of its own level〕, while one born in the three higher absorptions has consciousness of a lower level (the first absorption). It should be known that the four things of the mind element (body, mind, dharmas, mind consciousness) are not fixed: sometimes all four are of the same level, sometimes higher and lower—the body extends over five levels only, the other three over all levels; and in ranging through the attainments (entering the absorptions) and in taking birth, they are the same or different as is fitting, as will be distinguished at length in the later chapter on absorption. To save prolixity, no detailed distinction is made here—repeating before and after costs much effort and yields little benefit. The incidental discussion being complete, the principal discussion should now be taken up. Now it should be considered: among the eighteen elements, which is cognized by how many of the six consciousnesses? How many are permanent and how many impermanent? How many are faculties and how many not faculties? The stanza says:
〔Principal 44〕Three Gates: What Is Cognized · The Permanent · The Faculties (End of the Chapter)
Stanza: The five outer object fields are cognized by two consciousnesses; the permanent is the unconditioned within the element of dharmas; one portion of the element of dharmas is faculty, together with the inner twelve elements 〔in part〕.
Treatise: Among the eighteen elements, the five elements beginning with form are, in order, each cognized by one of the five consciousnesses beginning with the eye, and are also cognized collectively by mind consciousness—and so these five elements are each cognized by two of the six consciousnesses. Knowing this, it may be inferred that the remaining thirteen elements are all cognized only by mind consciousness—because they are not the objects of the five bodies of consciousness. Among the eighteen elements there is no element that is wholly permanent; only the unconditioned within one portion of the element of dharmas is permanent—extending the principle, the remaining dharmas and the remaining elements are all impermanent. Again, the sūtras speak of twenty-two faculties: the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty, the mind faculty, the female faculty, the male faculty, the life faculty, the faculty of pleasure, the faculty of pain, the faculty of gladness, the faculty of sorrow, the faculty of equanimity, the faculty of confidence, the faculty of diligence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of discernment, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, the faculty of what is known, and the faculty of full knowledge. The great masters of Abhidharma all pass over the sūtras’ sequence of the six sense fields and speak of the mind faculty only after the life faculty—because it has an object of consciousness 〔being unlike the life faculty and the rest in class, it is assigned to the dharmas of mind〕. These twenty-two faculties are, among the eighteen elements, included in the inner twelve elements and one portion of the element of dharmas: one portion of dharmas means the life faculty and the ten others—the life faculty, the five feeling faculties of pleasure, pain, gladness, sorrow, and equanimity, and the five wholesome faculties of confidence, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment (in the ancient masters’ commentaries: life, pleasure, pain, gladness, sorrow, equanimity, confidence, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, discernment)—together with one portion of the last three faculties (coming to know what is not yet known, what is known, full knowledge), which belong to the element of dharmas; the inner twelve: the five faculties beginning with the eye are included as their own names indicate; the mind faculty is included in the seven mind elements throughout; one portion of the last three faculties is included in the mind element and the mind consciousness element; and the female and male faculties are one portion of the body element—as will be distinguished later 〔in the Chapter on the Faculties〕. Extending the principle, it may be known that the remaining five elements beginning with form and one portion of the element of dharmas are in substance not faculties.