觸境Touch-domain
色法十一之第十。五境之末。為身根（→#64）所緣、身識（→#5）所緣之相分。⭐⭐⭐ 觸境為十一色法中唯一同時含「能造」（四大本身）與「所造」（22-23 種觸性）之色法——其他十色（五根 + 四境 + 法處所攝色）皆純所造；此為觸境之架構獨特性。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
色法十一之第十。五境之末。為身根（→#64）所緣、身識（→#5）所緣之相分。⭐⭐⭐ 觸境為十一色法中唯一同時含「能造」（四大本身）與「所造」（22-23 種觸性）之色法——其他十色（五根 + 四境 + 法處所攝色）皆純所造；此為觸境之架構獨特性。
⚠ In Review · 重要分判：本條 spraṣṭavya（觸境，色法，被觸之客體）與 #10 sparśa（觸，心所，根境識三事和合所生之心理活動）為異字異層——漢譯皆作「觸」，須以梵原文及語境分判。詳梵段。
經
[共傳] SA 273 攝 / DN 22 標準形式：
Kāyañca paṭicca phoṭṭhabbe ca uppajjati kāya-viññāṇaṃ. 緣身與所觸，生身識。
[大乘] 《大佛頂首楞嚴經》卷五（跋陀婆羅觸因圓通章），二十五圓通之第五「妙觸宣明」：
跋陀婆羅，並其同伴十六開士，即從座起，頂禮佛足，而白佛言：我等先於威音王佛，聞法出家。於浴僧時，隨例入室，忽悟水因，既不洗塵，亦不洗體，中間安然，得無所有。宿習無忘，乃至今時從佛出家，令得無學。彼佛名我跋陀婆羅，妙觸宣明，成佛子住。佛問圓通，如我所證，觸因為上。
——⭐⭐ 跋陀婆羅之觸因圓通呈現一個現象學上精細之緣起觀照——浴僧時觸水之經驗，既不歸於洗塵（觸 ≠ 由能洗之水所立）亦不歸於洗體（觸 ≠ 由所洗之身所立）；「中間安然，得無所有」者，根、境、識三軸之中間（觸識生起之介面）乃緣起之純粹現量，無實體底層可立。此敘述之教義精度在於觸境之四大屬性（水）成為觀照之直接對象——觸境作為唯一含初級色之色法，提供四大種與所造觸感之介面。
論
《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》（T31n1606_p0696b20–22）展開「所觸一分」二十二種：
所觸一分者，四大種所造身根所取義。謂滑、澁、輕、重、軟、緩、急、冷、飢、渴、飽、力、劣、悶、癢、黏、病、老、死、疲、息、勇。
⭐⭐ 「所觸一分」（spraṣṭavyaikadeśa）——「觸境之一分」——之技術標記：二十二種乃觸境之所造（upādāya）部分；觸境之能造（bhūta）部分為四大種本身（堅濕暖動），不在所造列舉中。觸境完整 = 四能造 + 22-23 所造。
《瑜伽師地論》（T30n1579_p0280a10–13）顯示完整結構：
謂地、水、火、風、輕性、重性、滑性、澁性、冷、飢、渴、飽、力、劣、緩、急、病、老、死、蛘、悶、粘、疲、息、軟怯、勇，如是等類，有眾多觸。
——《瑜伽師地論》 明列四大於所造二十二種之前，呈現觸境完整之能造 + 所造結構。
《大乘五蘊論》（T31n1612_p0848b22–23）最簡形式：
云何為所觸一分？謂身境界，除四大種餘所造觸，滑性、澁性、重性、輕性、冷、飢、渴等。
——《大乘五蘊論》 之「除四大種」prefix 明示一分之精細結構（四大種別立，所造二十二種為「餘」）。
按：觸境之架構獨特性即此「能造 + 所造」雙含結構。二十二所造中之身體狀態觸感（飢、渴、飽、悶、癢、病、老、死、疲、息）尤值得浮現——此皆於日常認知中視為「身體狀態」之現象，於唯識判攝中實為識所緣之觸境之相分：「我餓了」之經驗本質上是阿賴耶識所緣觸境之一種。此判攝徹底瓦解「身體是客觀機械」之預設——身體狀態即觸境，觸境即識所變之相分。
梵saṃskṛta
spraṣṭavya-viṣaya < spraṣṭavya（被觸者）+ viṣaya（境；詳 #65）。
spraṣṭavya = √spṛś「觸、接觸」+ -tavya（未來義務分詞 / gerundive 後綴，「應 X 者」「可 X 者」）= 「應被觸者」、「可被觸之物」。⭐⭐⭐ 此梵語語法形式直接 encode 教義立場：
| 梵文術語 | Grammatical 形式 | 義 |
|---|---|---|
| √spṛś | 動作根 | 「觸」之動作 |
| sparśa (#10) | 動詞名詞（kṛt-pratyaya） | 「觸之事件」（心所之觸活動） |
| spraṣṭavya (#69) | 未來被動分詞 / gerundive | 「被觸者」（色境之被觸客體） |
⭐⭐ #10 sparśa 與 #69 spraṣṭavya 漢譯皆作「觸」——此乃漢譯之系統地損失：梵語以同根之三種語法形式區分「觸之動作（√spṛś）/ 觸之事件名（sparśa）/ 被觸之客體（spraṣṭavya）」，漢以一字「觸」承之。讀者於 baifa 中遇「觸」字，須以所在詞族 分判：心所詞族之「觸」必為 sparśa (#10)，色法詞族之「觸」必為 spraṣṭavya (#69)。
⚠ In Review · 印歐祖語詞源不確：曾擬與 Latin spargere「散播」via 印歐祖語 *(s)preg- 相關，但 Lat. spargere 為 velar (g)、Skt √spṛś 為 palatal (ś)，consonant 對應不規則。可能與印歐祖語 *sp(h)erǵ- 「膨脹、爆裂」（→ Greek σπαργάω「腫脹」、Lithuanian sprogti「爆」）有間接關聯，但 tactile-sense 之直接印歐祖語詞源 無 secure 證攝。en 段標 honest「印歐祖語不確、限於 Indo-Iranian-internal evidence」。
Pāli phoṭṭhabba < phuṭṭha-tabba（< √phus / √spṛś 之 Pāli 變形 + gerundive 後綴 -tabba——保留 gerundive 結構，乃 Pāli 對梵文語法精度之 successful 保留之例）。同根之 phassa 對應 Skt sparśa（→#10）。
⭐⭐⭐ 5 境樣板於 #69 之特殊形式——Asg 用 spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ（「觸境之一分」）為 lemma，非用 spraṣṭavyaḥ 直接——此 ekadeśa（一分）專技 marker 顯示 Asg 之 awareness：觸境若全列必含 4 大本身（4 mahābhūta），但 4 大已於 rūpa-skandha 框架中作為 bhūta-rūpa 別立；故觸境之 upādāya 部分作為「一分」enumerate，避免雙重-counting。其他 4 境（色聲香味）無此 ekadeśa 標記，因其皆純 upādāya。
《阿毘達磨集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，Pradhan 校本 [Abhidh-s 4]）：
spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ katamaḥ / catvāri mahābhūtānyupādāya kāyendriya-grāhyo 'rthaḥ / ślakṣṇatvaṃ karkaśatvaṃ laghutvaṃ gurūtvaṃ picchilatvaṃ mandatvam amandatvaṃ śītatvam uṣṇatvaṃ jighatsā pipāsā tṛptir balaṃ daurbalyaṃ mūrcchā kaṇḍūtiḥ pūtir vyādhir jarā maraṇaṃ klāntir viśrāma ūrjā ca //
⭐ Asg 列二十三所造觸；《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 漢譯作 22（省略 uṣṇa「暖」一項，列於「冷」之後）。23 vs 22 之分歧為文本之層，非義理——《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 可能視「暖」為與 4 大之「火大」重複（火大 = 暖性）而省，Asg 保留以強調 upādāya 層之「觸覺暖感」（與 bhūta 層之火大本性區分）。
⚠ In Review · GRETIL（哥廷根大學印度語典電子文獻檔） OCR：daurbalayaṃ → 正讀 daurbalyam（spurious vowel doubling, RUPA §VII typo #8）。
按：觸境之語法精度（gerundive 形式 spraṣṭavya）與其架構獨特性（唯一含 bhūta + upādāya）形成義理雙重標記——梵語以特殊 grammatical 形式標記其特殊本體論狀態；漢譯以「觸」一字承之，損失語法精準。成唯識仿譯於此例為 partial-verbatim 而非 full：《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 為 Asg 22-重之逐字（除 uṣṇa 一項），但 ekadeśa「一分」之語法精度於漢譯中作為「所觸一分」之 phrase 而非 inflectional ending 保存——漢字 isolating 結構之必然 limitation。
巴pāḷi
南傳之觸境結構為 5 境中與瑜伽行派分歧最深者：
| 瑜伽行派 | 南傳 | 對應度 |
|---|---|---|
| spraṣṭavya-viṣaya（4 大 + 23 upādāya = 27 觸性） | 三 mahābhūta（地火風） + vikāra-rūpa 部分（3 items）+ 散在其他色 | ⚠️ 架構不對稱 |
| 含 4 大種為觸性 | 僅 3 大為觸性（水 āpo 不可直接觸） | ⚠️ 本體分歧 |
| kampanatā 動（風大特性） | vitthambhana 支持（風大特性，Vism XI） | ⚠️ lakkhaṇa 分歧 |
⭐⭐⭐ 三大架構分歧：
(1) āpo（水大）之可觸性問題：南傳 Vism XI.88ff 立場為水大不可直接觸——水之 paggharaṇa（流注）僅可由推論知，不可由身根直接 grasp；身根所觸之「濕」實為流動所伴之地大（堅性之變動）+ 火大（溫度）+ 風大（運動）之鎖字 impression。瑜伽行派 Asg 不採此立場——4 大全部視為觸境之 bhūta 部分。此乃 5 境中唯一本體分歧（其他分歧皆 classificatory）。
(2) upādāya 觸性之範疇之分散：Asg 23 種觸性於南傳中分散入 vikāra-rūpa（lahutā 輕快 / mudutā 柔軟 / kammaññatā 適業 — 3 items），其他觸性（飢渴飽病老死等）未獨立 enumerate 於 28 色法中——南傳視之為心法之情感維度而非 rūpa 之 sub-classification。瑜伽行派將整套 upādāya 觸性 unify 入 spraṣṭavya-viṣaya；南傳將其拆散入多個 dharma 判攝。
(3) vāyu（風大）之 lakkhaṇa：Asg 立 kampanatā「動」為風大 lakkhaṇa；南傳 Vism XI 立 vitthambhana「支持」為風大 lakkhaṇa。同一 mahābhūta，不同首要 characterization——「風 = 動」 vs 「風 = 支持/維持身形」。此乃 5 境 / 4 大整個範圍中最深義理分歧之一。
經
Kāyañca paṭicca phoṭṭhabbe ca uppajjati kāya-viññāṇaṃ（DN 22, SN 35.93）
⭐ Pāli phoṭṭhabba 直承梵文 gerundive 結構（phuṭṭha-tabba），語法精準保留——5 境之梵文 grammatical 形式於 Pāli 中 successful preserved，唯漢譯 isolating language 損失。
論
⚠ In Review · Vism XIV phoṭṭhabba 結構之逐字 Pāli 待字元核校；XI.88ff 之 āpo 不可觸論逐字待字元核校。
按：觸境之南北分歧 為 5 境深層處——前 4 境之分歧皆 classificatory（瑜伽行派較 richer），觸境加本體分歧（水大可否直接觸）+ lakkhaṇa 分歧（風大本性）。⭐⭐⭐ 此表面一個 baifa 色法詞族之架構 fact：南北分歧之深度於 5 境中遞增——色（classificatory only）→ 聲（+ 認識論之軸瑜伽行派-distinctive）→ 香 / 味（mild 結構之闡發）→ 觸（+ 本體 + lakkhaṇa）。觸境作為 5 境之末，承擔最深之南北分歧 load；亦因觸境之架構獨特性（唯一含 bhūta），其分歧表面於本體論層而非僅 classification 層。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「觸境」之梵文 spraṣṭavya 為 √spṛś「觸、接觸」+ gerundive 後綴 -tavya（未來被動分詞，「應 X 者」「可 X 者」）之合成——字義即「應被觸者」「可被觸之物」，梵語語法形式直接編碼教義立場（色境作為被識所取之客體）。⚠️ 印歐祖語詞源不確：曾擬與拉丁 spargere「散播」via 印歐祖語 *(s)preg- 相關，但拉丁為軟顎音（g）而梵文為齶音（ś），子音對應不規則；較保守之路線擬與印歐祖語 *sp(h)erǵ-「膨脹、爆裂」（→希臘 σπαργάω「腫脹」、立陶宛 sprogti「爆」）有間接關聯，但「觸感」義之印歐祖語詞源無確攝——⚠️ 如實保留不確定性。⚠️ false-cognate alert：英 touch < 古法 tochier < 俗拉丁 *toccāre，可能為凱爾特或高盧語底層，與 spraṣṭavya 無詞源連繫。Pāli phoṭṭhabba 保留 gerundive 結構（phuṭṭha-tabba < 同根 + 同後綴 -tabba），為 Pāli 成功保留梵文語法精度之例；Pāli phassa 對應梵 sparśa（→#10）。⭐⭐ 漢譯「觸」之系統性語義疊合：梵語三語法形式（√spṛś 動作根 / sparśa #10 心所 / spraṣṭavya #69 色法）漢譯皆作「觸」——讀者須以詞族分判：心所詞族之「觸」必為 sparśa （→#10），色法詞族之「觸」必為 spraṣṭavya（本條）。漢字「觸」從角、蜀聲，本義以角觸物，玄奘以之涵蓋感觸 / 所觸兩義層之合名。
Asg 五境句法於觸境以特殊形式實例化（詳 →#65）：spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ katamaḥ / catvāri mahābhūtānyupādāya kāyendriya-grāhyo 'rthaḥ——關鍵在「ekadeśa」（一分）之技術標記：觸境之 Asg 詞目非 spraṣṭavyaḥ 而是 spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ，明示所列二十三種所造觸（Asg 梵本；《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》作二十二種，省略 uṣṇa「暖」一項——詳驗證報告）乃觸境之所造（upādāya）部分，觸境之能造（bhūta）部分為四大種本身（地 / 水 / 火 / 風）。觸境完整 = 4 能造 + 所造觸性（詳 S3 色法論文）。CWS 立 11 觸：4 能造（地 / 水 / 火 / 風）+ 7 所造（滑性 / 澀性 / 重 / 輕 / 冷 / 飢 / 渴）——《大乘五蘊論》「除四大種餘所造觸」之冠首語明示四大別立，所造為「餘」。⭐⭐ 觸境為十一色法中唯一同時含「能造」（四大本身）與「所造」（觸性諸種）之色法——其他色法皆純所造；此架構獨特性即 ekadeśa 標記之直接蘊含。與 →#64 身根為對，與 →#5 身識為所行境。
觸境南北分歧含存有論分歧（非僅分類分歧），超越前四境之純分類分歧（詳 →#65 南北段 N-S 四階對應框架）。其一，水大可觸性問題：唯識立 4 大均直接可觸；南傳 Vism XI.88ff 立場為水大（āpo）不可直接觸，「濕感」實為地大 / 火大 / 風大之複合印象——此為觸境之 N-S 存有論層分判（詳 →#65 paradigm）。其二，所造觸性之分散：Asg 所造觸性（23 種；詳驗證報告）於南傳分散入 vikāra-rūpa（3 種：輕快 / 柔軟 / 適業）及其他判攝，多項（飢渴病老死等）未於 28 色中獨立列舉——唯識統一，南傳拆散。其三，風大 lakkhaṇa 分歧：Asg 立 kampanatā（動）為風大首要特性；Vism XI 立 vitthambhana（支持）為首要特性。共傳經式：Kāyañca paṭicca phoṭṭhabbe ca uppajjati kāya-viññāṇaṃ（DN 22、SN 35.93；漢 SA 273）——緣身與所觸生身識，兩傳共承緣起格式，分歧入於阿毘達磨層。Vism XIV 觸境四相待字元核校。
觸境之修持接入點遍布日常——修行者坐姿、呼吸、環境溫度、飢飽疲勞皆屬觸境之相分。其一，身念處（kāyānupassanā）於身門側（→#64）；觸境側之「觸、觸」（phusana）念所緣為坐墊壓力、氣流冷暖、姿勢推力，Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta 最早系統化之修持之一。其二，跋陀婆羅之觸因圓通（→#69 [大乘]）——浴僧觸水之際，「既不洗塵，亦不洗體，中間安然，得無所有」：觸 ≠ 由能洗之水所立，亦 ≠ 由所洗之身所立，觸識生起之「中間」（根境識三軸介面）乃緣起之純粹現量，無實體底層可立。其三，⭐ 身體狀態觸感之唯識判攝——唯識將飢、渴、疲、病、老、死等納入觸境之所造部分（識所緣之相分），徹底瓦解「身體狀態為客觀機械之內部狀態」之前提：「我餓了」之體驗本質上是阿賴耶識所緣觸境之一種——此判攝為修持之體解提供直接基礎。
玄奘以「觸境」二字承 spraṣṭavya-viṣaya，「觸」一字兼覆心所 sparśa（→#10）與色法 spraṣṭavya（本條），須以梵文語法形式 + 詞族判別（→詞源段）。英譯選 Touch-domain 而非 Tangible-domain 或 Tactile-domain——Touch-domain 能涵 4 大種之直觸性 + 所造觸性兩層；tangible 偏物質性，tactile 偏感官刺激面，均不如 touch-domain 全幅。spraṣṭavya 之 gerundive 形式可附譯「所應觸者之境域」以保留語法精度。本條於五境 cluster 中居末（第五），所造觸性之完整列舉詳 S3 色法論文及驗證報告。不可見、有對。
觸境 —— 五境之第五。為 →#64 身根之所緣境，為 →#5 身識之所行境；依四大種，觸塵為性，可觸為業；CWS 立 11 觸（4 大種 + 7 所造），Asg 廣本立 23 所造（詳 S3 色法論文及驗證報告）；十一色法中唯一同時含能造（四大本身）與所造之色法；不可見、有對。與 →#10 sparśa（心所之觸活動）異字異層，勿混。
英綜述en-synthesis
Sanskrit spraṣṭavya-viṣaya compounds spraṣṭavya (the touchable, that-which-is-to-be-touched) and viṣaya (see #65). Spraṣṭavya is morphologically distinctive: it is a gerundive (future passive participle) of √spṛś ("to touch") with the suffix -tavya, yielding the precise meaning "what is to be touched, the touchable." Sanskrit grammar distinguishes three forms from this same root, each with its own technical referent in Buddhist abhidharma: √spṛś as the action-root ("touching"), sparśa as the verbal-noun naming the cetasika of contact (#10 in baifa, the universal mental factor that arises when faculty-object-consciousness coincide), and spraṣṭavya as the gerundive naming the rūpa-object (#69, the touchable as a category of form). The Chinese translation tradition collapses all three into the single character 觸 ("touch"), creating a systematic ambiguity that requires readers of any Chinese Buddhist text to disambiguate by context — by the cluster (cetasika #10 vs rūpa #69) and by surrounding terminology. Pāli phoṭṭhabba preserves the gerundive structure (phuṭṭha-tabba < the same root with the same suffix), one of several cases where Pāli phonological evolution preserves Sanskrit grammatical precision more faithfully than the isolating Chinese translation. (Pāli phassa correspondingly preserves the verbal-noun sparśa-form for the cetasika.) PIE etymology is uncertain: the proposed connection to Latin spargere ("to scatter, sprinkle") via PIE *(s)preg- shows irregular consonant correspondence (Latin velar g does not correspond regularly to Sanskrit palatal ś), and modern Indo-European linguistics does not treat the cognation as secure. A more conservative position would relate √spṛś to PIE *sp(h)erǵ- ("to swell, burst") yielding Greek σπαργάω ("swell") and Lithuanian sprogti ("burst") — but the semantic path from "swell/burst" to "touch" is indirect, and the touch-sense itself has no secure PIE attestation. The honest position: spraṣṭavya's etymology is morphologically transparent within Sanskrit (root + gerundive suffix) but lacks robust IE comparative depth. (False-cognate alert: English touch < Old French tochier < Vulgar Latin *toccāre "to knock, beat" — Celtic or Gaulish substrate, no PIE link to spraṣṭavya.)
The touch-domain in Yogācāra is the fifth and final of the five viṣayas and stands out as architecturally unique among the eleven rūpa-dharmas: it is the only color-form dharma containing both bhūta-rūpa (primary matter — the four mahābhūtas: earth, water, fire, wind themselves) and upādāya-rūpa (derived matter — twenty-three further tactile qualities). Every other rūpa-dharma in the 100-list is either pure bhūta (the mahābhūtas, treated as the foundation but not separately enumerated in baifa's 11) or pure upādāya (the five faculties, the other four sense-objects, the dharma-base form). This dual containment is registered in the Sanskrit lemma itself: Asaṅga's term is spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ ("a portion of the touchable") with the technical marker ekadeśa ("a portion") signaling that what follows is the upādāya portion only, the mahābhūtas being primary matter handled at the rūpa-skandha frame-level. The full touch-domain in Yogācāra accordingly comprises (a) the four primary elements as themselves tangibles (the body-faculty grasps earth, water, fire, wind directly through their primary characteristics: hardness, fluidity, heat, motion), and (b) twenty-three derived tangibles enumerated by Asaṅga: ślakṣṇa smooth, karkaśa rough, laghu light, guru heavy, picchila sticky, manda slow, amanda swift, śīta cold, uṣṇa warm (the item 《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》 omits, reducing Chinese count to 22), jighatsā hunger, pipāsā thirst, tṛpti satiation, bala strength, daurbalya weakness, mūrcchā faintness, kaṇḍūti itch, pūti rotting, vyādhi sickness, jarā aging, maraṇa death, klānti exhaustion, viśrāma rest, ūrjā vigor. The phenomenological reach of this list is doctrinally profound: states ordinarily classified as "bodily conditions" (hunger, thirst, sickness, aging, dying, fatigue) are here treated as objects of body-consciousness — sensory phenomena grasped by the body-faculty, not properties of an extramental physical body. The Yogācāra position dissolves the spontaneous identification of body-as-objective-machine: the lived experience "I'm hungry" is, doctrinally, a moment of body-consciousness cognizing a touch-object (jighatsā as spraṣṭavya), not an internal-state report about an autonomous physiological substrate. Among the five viṣayas, only the touch-domain extends this far into what ordinary language calls "states of the body itself."
The touch-domain shows the deepest North-South divergence among the five viṣayas, and its divergences are uniquely ontological rather than merely classificatory. Three architectural divergences distinguish Yogācāra from Theravāda here. (1) The water-element's tangibility: Yogācāra treats all four mahābhūtas as directly tangible (the body-faculty grasps fluidity as a primary touch-quality); Theravāda's Visuddhimagga XI.88ff argues that āpo (water) is not directly tangible — what feels like "wetness" is actually a compound impression of solidity-variation (earth), temperature (fire), and motion (wind), with water-as-such known only by inference. This is a real ontological disagreement about the nature of fluidity-perception, and it propagates through the touch-classification. (2) The categorial dispersion of upādāya touch-qualities: Asaṅga's twenty-three derived tangibles are unified in Yogācāra as a single sub-list under spraṣṭavya-viṣaya; Theravāda disperses this same phenomenological territory across multiple dharma-categories — vikāra-rūpa (with three items: lahutā lightness, mudutā pliancy, kammaññatā workability), some items absorbed into saṅkhāra-cetasikas, and several items (hunger, thirst, sickness, aging, dying) not enumerated as standalone rūpas at all in the canonical 28-list. The architectural pattern is consistent with the broader N-S divergence (Yogācāra unifies; Theravāda atomizes), but its scope is dramatically expanded here. (3) The wind-element's lakkhaṇa: Asaṅga gives kampanatā ("motion") as the primary characterization of the wind-element; Theravāda's Visuddhimagga XI gives vitthambhana ("supporting, distending") as vāyo's primary lakkhaṇa. Both are real qualities of wind, but the schools differ on which is primary — and this is the same mahābhūta whose body-faculty contact yields what counts as a touch-object. The touch-domain's N-S divergence is therefore not surface-textual but doctrinally substantive at the foundational level of mahābhūta theory itself. The Pāli canonical sutta-formula kāyañca paṭicca phoṭṭhabbe ca uppajjati kāya-viññāṇaṃ remains shared inheritance — divergence enters at the abhidharmic level. The cluster-level architectural fact: across the five viṣayas, divergence depth increases from #65 (form: classificatory only) through #66 (sound: + epistemic axis) and #67–#68 (smell, taste: mild structural) to #69 (touch: + ontological + lakkhaṇa). Touch as the cluster-terminus carries the heaviest divergence load.
The touch-domain is contemplatively engaged at the most universally accessible seam in Buddhist practice: the body's contact with what surrounds it. Three classical seams. (1) Kāyānupassanā (#64 Practitioner's seam) works at the body-faculty side; the touch-domain side is the always-already-on field of contact-objects (the cushion under the practitioner, breath against the nostrils, ambient temperature, posture-induced pressures). The sustained noting practice "phusana, phusana" (touching, touching) at the body-gate is one of the earliest contemplative disciplines codified in the canonical Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta. (2) The Bhadrapāla yuán-tōng (跋陀婆羅) at #69's [大乘] segment offers a phenomenologically precise variant: while bathing with the saṅgha, Bhadrapāla suddenly understands the touch-of-water is not located in the water (which would be doing the cleansing) and not located in the body (which would be receiving the cleansing), but rather in a "middle-space" (中間) where contact arises without substantial substrate (得無所有, "obtaining nothing-that-is-had"). The contemplative move turns on noticing the absence at the touch-seam — the touch is real, the experience is vivid, but no substantial subject and no substantial object can be located when attention is directed precisely at the contact-event itself. Hence Bhadrapāla's epithet 妙觸宣明 ("wondrous-touch made manifest"): the touchable is fully real phenomenologically while being empty of substantial location ontologically. (3) Body-state observation as upādāya touch-domain: the Yogācāra inclusion of hunger, thirst, fatigue, illness, and aging within spraṣṭavya-viṣaya provides a contemplative reframing of states ordinarily taken as physiological-internal. The practitioner who notes "hunger arising, hunger persisting, hunger ceasing" or "aging, aging" at the touch-domain seam discovers experientially what the doctrinal classification claims — that these are objects-grasped rather than states-of-self, and that the spontaneous identification "I am hungry / I am tired / I am old" is a layer added by mental fabrication on top of a momentary touch-object that has no inherent identity-implication. The touch-domain's contemplative reach extends into the territory ordinarily reserved for medical or existential reflection, and provides the abhidharmic substrate for what becomes (in later Mahāyāna) the doctrine of bodily impermanence as direct contemplative object. ⚠️ Provenance caveat per #60 譯者按.
Touch-domain (spraṣṭavya-viṣaya; literally "the touchable as cognitive sphere") — the tactile field cognized by body-consciousness, comprising the four primary elements themselves (earth, water, fire, wind, as directly tangible primary qualities — hardness, fluidity, heat, motion) and twenty-three derived tangibles (smooth, rough, light, heavy, sticky, slow, swift, cold, warm, hunger, thirst, satiation, strength, weakness, faintness, itch, rotting, sickness, aging, death, exhaustion, rest, vigor). An aspect-portion of consciousness; the only color-form dharma containing both primary and derived matter; fifth and final of the five sense-objects; site of the deepest North-South architectural divergence in the color-form cluster (water-tangibility, upādāya-dispersion, wind-lakkhaṇa). To be carefully distinguished from sparśa (#10), the cetasika of contact, with which it shares the Chinese rendering 觸 but differs in Sanskrit grammatical form, doctrinal layer, and dharmic category.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 五境範式之結構分析詳 S3 色法論文（⚠️ 論文編號待確認）。值得標記之 #69 獨特觀察為觸境之架構唯一性——baifa 十一色法中唯一同時含初級色（四大本身）與所造色（22-23 觸性）之法；梵文 lemma spraṣṭavyaikadeśaḥ（「觸境之一分」）之 ekadeśa 標記直接蘊含此雙含。南北分歧於五境之深度遞增於此組末段達深層處——加存有論（水大可否直接觸：北是 / 南否，Vism XI.88ff）+ 特性（風大本性：北 kampanatā 動 / 南 vitthambhana 支持，Vism XI）兩重分歧。⭐ 漢譯「觸」字之系統性語義疊合（→#10 sparśa 心所 對 #69 spraṣṭavya 色法）為梵語三語法形式（√spṛś / sparśa / spraṣṭavya）漢譯之 isolating-language 必然合併；讀者於 baifa 中遇「觸」字須以組分判（→#10）。（[大乘] 楞嚴圓通引文之來源框架詳 #60 譯者按 §[大乘] 引文選用說明。）