Abhidharmakosha-bhashya, Fascicle 1

觸界中有二，餘九色所造，

The touch element has both; the other nine material elements are derived,

法一分亦然，十色可積集。

A portion of the dharma element is likewise; the ten material elements can be accumulated.

論曰：觸界通二，謂大種及所造。大種有四，謂堅性等。所造有七，謂滑性等，依大種生故名所造。餘九色界唯是所造，謂五色根、色等四境。法界一分無表業色亦唯所造。餘七心界法界一分，除無表色俱非二種。尊者覺天作如是說：十種色處唯大種性。彼說不然，契經唯說堅等四相為大種故。此四大種唯觸攝故，非堅濕等眼等所取，非色聲等身根所覺，是故彼說理定不然。又契經說：苾芻當知，眼謂內處四大種所造淨色，有色無見有對，乃至身處廣說亦爾。苾芻當知，色謂外處四大種所造，有色有見有對。聲謂外處四大種所造，有色無見有對。香味二處，廣說亦爾。觸謂外處，是四大種及四大種所造，有色無見有對。如是經中唯說觸處攝四大種，分明顯示餘有色處皆非大種。若爾，何故契經中言謂於眼肉團中若內各別堅性堅類，乃至廣說。彼說不離眼根肉團有堅性等，無相違過。《入胎經》中唯說六界為士夫者，為顯能成士夫本事，非唯爾所，彼經復說六觸處故。又諸心所應非有故，亦不應執心所即心，以契經言想受等心所法依止心故。又亦說有貪心等故。由此如前所說諸界大種所造，差別義成。如是已說大種性等。十八界中，五根、五境十有色界是可積集，極微聚故。義準餘八非可積集，非極微故。如是已說可積集等。十八界中，幾能斫、幾所斫？幾能燒、幾所燒？幾能稱、幾所稱？頌曰：

The treatise says: The touch element extends to both, namely the great elements and the derived. The great elements are four, namely solidity and so on. The derived are seven, namely smoothness and so on, called derived because they arise depending on the great elements. The other nine material elements are only derived, namely the five material sense faculties and the four objects, color and so on. The unmanifest form included in the dharma element is also only derived. The other seven mind elements and the portion of the dharma element, apart from unmanifest form, are of neither kind. The Venerable Buddhadeva spoke thus: The ten kinds of material bases are only of the nature of the great elements. This is not so, say others, since the sutra only says that the four characteristics, solidity and so on, are the great elements. These four great elements are included only in touch, so they are not what the eye and the rest take as solidity, wetness and the rest, nor what the body faculty perceives as color, sound and the rest; so their theory is certainly not correct by reason. Moreover the sutra says: "Monks, you should know that the eye is the internal base, the clear matter derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant," and so on up to the body base likewise. "Monks, you should know that form is the external base, derived from the four great elements, with form, visible, and resistant. Sound is the external base, derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant. The bases of smell and taste are likewise, as explained at length. Touch is the external base, being the four great elements and what is derived from the four great elements, with form, invisible, and resistant." Thus the sutra says only that the touch base includes the great elements, which clearly shows that the other material bases are not great elements. If so, why does the sutra say: "Within the flesh-ball of the eye, there is internal solidity, a class of the solid," and so on at length? That speaks of solidity and so on in the flesh-ball not separate from the eye faculty, and there is no fault of contradiction. The Garbhavakranti sutra says only six elements for a person, to show what can constitute a person, not that there are only these; and that sutra also speaks of the six bases of contact. Moreover, mental factors would not exist; nor should one hold that mental factors are the mind itself, because the sutra says that feeling, perception and so on are mental factors that rely on the mind. It also speaks of a mind with greed and so on. Therefore, as stated above, the difference between the great elements and the derived among the elements is established. Thus the nature of the great elements and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen elements, the ten material elements, the five faculties and five objects, can be accumulated, because they are aggregates of atoms. By implication, the other eight cannot be accumulated, because they are not atoms. Thus what can be accumulated and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many can cut and how many be cut? How many can burn and how many be burned? How many can weigh and how many be weighed? The verse says:

謂唯外四界，能斫及所斫，

Only the four external elements can cut and be cut,

亦所燒能稱，能燒所稱諍。

And can be burned and can weigh; as for what can burn and be weighed, there is dispute.

論曰：色香味觸成斧薪等，此即名為能斫所斫。何法名斫？薪等色聚相逼續生，斧等分隔令各續起，此法名斫。身等色根不名所斫，非可全斷令成二故。非身根等可成二分，支分離身則無根故。又身根等亦非能斫，以淨妙故如珠寶光。如能斫所斫體唯外四界，所燒能稱其體亦爾，謂唯外四界名所燒能稱。身等色根亦非二事，以淨妙故如珠寶光。聲界總非，不相續故。能燒所稱有異諍論，謂或有說：能燒所稱體亦如前，唯外四界。或復有說：唯有火界可名能燒，所稱唯重。如是已說能所斫等。十八界中幾異熟生、幾所長養、幾等流性、幾有實事、幾一剎那？頌曰：

The treatise says: Color, smell, taste, and touch constitute the axe, the firewood and so on, and these are called what can cut and be cut. What dharma is called cutting? When the form-aggregates of firewood and so on press upon one another and continue arising, the axe and so on separate them so that each continues to arise separately; this dharma is called cutting. The material faculties such as the body are not called what can be cut, because they cannot be wholly severed to become two. The body faculty and so on cannot become two parts, since a limb separated from the body has no faculty. Nor can the body faculty and so on cut, being subtle and clear like the light of a jewel. As what can cut and be cut have essence only in the four external elements, so too what can be burned and what can weigh have their essence only in the four external elements, which are called what can be burned and what can weigh. The material faculties such as the body are also not these two things, being subtle and clear like the light of a jewel. The sound element is in no case so, because it does not continue. As to what can burn and what can be weighed, there are differing disputes: some say that what can burn and what can be weighed also have the same essence as before, only the four external elements; others say that only the fire element can be called what can burn, and what can be weighed is only heaviness. Thus what can cut and be cut and so on have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are ripened-born, how many nourished, how many outflowing, how many have a real entity, how many are of a single moment? The verse says:

內五有熟養，聲無異熟生，

The inner five are ripened and nourished; sound is not ripened-born,

八無礙等流，亦異熟生性，

The eight non-resistant ones are outflowing and also of ripened-born nature,

餘三實唯法，剎那唯後三。

The other three have real entity only in the dharma; the single moment applies only to the last three.

論曰：內五即是眼等五界。有異熟生及所長養無等流者，離異熟生及所長養，無別性故。異熟因所生名異熟生，如牛所駕車名曰牛車，略去中言故作是說。或所造業至得果時變而能熟，故名異熟。果從彼生，名異熟生。彼所得果與因別類，而是所熟，故名異熟。或於因上假立果名，如於果上假立因名。如契經說：今六觸處，應知即是昔所造業。飲食資助眠睡等持勝緣所益，名所長養。有說：梵行亦能長養。此唯無損，非別有益。長養相續常能護持異熟相續，猶如外郭防援內城。聲有等流及所長養無異熟生。所以者何？隨欲轉故。若爾，不應《施設論》說善修遠離麁惡語故，感得大士梵音聲相。有說：聲屬第三傳故，雖由彼生而非異熟。謂從彼業生諸大種，從諸大種緣擊發聲。有說：聲屬第五傳故，雖由彼生而非異熟。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。若爾，身受從業所生大種生故，應非異熟。若受如聲，便違正理。八無礙者，七心法界此有等流異熟生性。同類遍行因所生者是等流性，若異熟因所引生者名異熟生，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。實唯法者，實謂無為，以堅實故。此法界攝故，唯法界獨名有實。意、法、意識名為後三，於六三中最後說故。唯此三界有一剎那，謂初無漏苦法忍品，非等流故名一剎那。此說究竟非等流者，餘有為法無非等流。苦法忍相應心名意界、意識界，餘俱起法名為法界。如是已說異熟生等。今應思擇，若有眼界先不成就今得成就亦眼識耶？若眼識界先不成就今得成就亦眼界耶？如是等問，今應略答。頌曰：

The treatise says: The inner five are the five elements, eye and the rest. They are ripened-born and nourished but not outflowing, because apart from the ripened-born and the nourished they have no other nature. What is born from a ripened cause is called ripened-born, like a cart drawn by oxen is called an ox-cart; the sentence is spoken thus because the intermediate words are omitted. Or else, when karma that was done reaches the time of bearing fruit it changes and is able to ripen, so it is called ripening; the fruit born from it is called ripened-born. The fruit obtained from it is of a different class from the cause yet is what has been ripened, and so is called ripening. Or the name of fruit is figuratively set upon the cause, as the name of cause is set upon the fruit. As the sutra says: "The six contact bases now present should be known as the very karma done in the past." That which is aided by food and drink, sleep, and the conditions of concentration is called nourished. Some say that pure conduct can also nourish; this only does not harm, and is not a separate benefit. Nourishing continues and constantly protects the ripened continuity, like an outer wall defending and supporting an inner city. Sound has outflowing and nourished but is not ripened-born. Why? Because it follows desire. If so, the Prajnapti-sastra would not say that by well cultivating the avoidance of coarse and harsh speech one obtains the voice mark of a great being, the Brahma voice. Some say: sound belongs to the third transmission, so although it is born from that, it is not ripened; that is, from the great elements born of that karma, from the great elements, by the condition of striking, sound is produced. Others say: sound belongs to the fifth transmission, so although it is born from that, it is not ripened; that is, the ripened great elements born of that karma transmit to produce nourished great elements, which in turn transmit to produce outflowing great elements, and only then sound is produced. If so, bodily sensation, being born from great elements born of karma, should not be ripened. If sensation is like sound, this contradicts correct reasoning. The eight non-resistant ones, the seven mind elements and the dharma element, have the nature of outflowing and ripened-born. What arises from a cause of the same class or a pervasive cause is of the outflowing nature; what is drawn forth by a ripening cause is called ripened-born. Non-resistant dharmas are not accumulated, so they are not nourished. The "other" are the other four: color, smell, taste, and touch, which extend to all three: they can be ripened-born, nourished, and outflowing. Having a real entity applies only to dharmas; "real" means the unconditioned, because it is solid and real. Since this belongs to the dharma element, only the dharma element alone is called having reality. The mind, dharma, and mind-consciousness are called the last three, because among the six sets of three they are mentioned last. Only these three elements have a single moment, namely the first undefiled stage, the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering, because it is not outflowing, hence it is called a single moment. Here "ultimately not outflowing" is meant; other conditioned dharmas are all outflowing. The mind associated with the acceptance of the knowledge of suffering is called the mind element and the mind-consciousness element; the other co-arisen dharmas are called the dharma element. Thus ripened-born and so on have been explained. Now we should examine: if one has the eye element not previously possessed and now comes to possess it, does one also possess eye-consciousness? And if one now comes to possess the eye-consciousness element not previously possessed, does one also possess the eye element? Questions like these should now be briefly answered. The verse says:

眼與眼識界，獨俱得非等。

The eye and eye-consciousness elements: obtained singly, obtained together, or neither.

論曰：獨得者，謂或有眼界先不成就今得成就非眼識，謂生欲界漸得眼根，及無色沒生二三四靜慮地時。或有眼識先不成就今得成就非眼界，謂生二三四靜慮地眼識現起，及從彼沒生下地時。俱得者，謂或有二界先不成就今得成就，謂無色沒生於欲界及梵世時。非者俱非，謂除前相。等謂若有成就眼界亦眼識耶？應作四句。第一句者，謂生二三四靜慮地眼識不起。第二句者，謂生欲界未得眼根及得已失。第三句者，謂生欲界得眼不失，及生梵世若生二三四靜慮地正見色時。第四句者，謂除前相。如是眼界與色界。眼識與色界得成就等如理應思，為攝如是所未說義，是故頌中總復言等。如是已說得成就等。十八界中幾內、幾外？頌曰：

The treatise says: Obtained singly: there are cases where one comes to possess the eye element not previously possessed but not eye-consciousness, namely when one is born in the desire realm and gradually gains the eye faculty, and when one dies from the formless realm and is born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground. There are cases where one comes to possess eye-consciousness not previously possessed but not the eye element, namely when eye-consciousness arises for one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground, and when one dies from there and is born in a lower ground. Obtained together: there are cases where one comes to possess both elements not previously possessed, namely when one dies from the formless realm and is born in the desire realm or the Brahma world. Neither: the rest, other than the above. As for "and so on": if one possesses the eye element, does one also possess eye-consciousness? There should be four alternatives. The first: one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground whose eye-consciousness does not arise. The second: one born in the desire realm who has not yet gained the eye faculty, or who has gained it and lost it. The third: one born in the desire realm who has gained the eye and not lost it, and one born in the Brahma world, or one born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground who is actually seeing forms. The fourth: the rest, other than the above. Likewise the eye element and the form element, and eye-consciousness and the form element, in their obtaining and possession and so on, should be reasoned out; in order to include the meanings not spoken of above, the verse adds "and so on." Thus obtaining and possession have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many are internal and how many external? The verse says:

內十二眼等，色等六為外。

Twelve, eye and the rest, are internal; the six, form and the rest, are external.

論曰：六根、六識十二名內，外謂所餘色等六境。我依名內，外謂此餘。我體既無，內外何有？我執依止故，假說心為我。故契經說：

The treatise says: The six faculties and six consciousnesses, twelve in all, are called internal; external means the other six objects, form and the rest. What depends on the self is called internal, and external is what is other than this. Since the self has no substance, how can there be internal and external? Because of the support of self-grasping, the mind is figuratively spoken of as the self. Hence the sutra says:

由善調伏我，智者得生天。

By well taming the self, the wise are born in heaven.

世尊餘處說調伏心，如契經言：

(The treatise continues:) Elsewhere the World-Honored One speaks of taming the mind, as the sutra says:

應善調伏心，心調能引樂。

One should well tame the mind; a tamed mind brings happiness.

故但於心假說為我。眼等為此所依親近，故說名內。色等為此所緣踈遠，故說名外。若爾，六識應不名內，未至意位非心依故。至意位時不失六識界，未至意位亦非越意相。若異此者，意界唯應在過去世，六識唯在現在未來，便違自宗許十八界皆通三世。又若未來現在六識無意界相，過去意界亦應不立，相於三世無改易故。已說內外。十八界中幾是同分、幾彼同分？頌曰：

(The treatise continues:) So it is only the mind that is figuratively spoken of as the self. The eye and the rest are close supports of this, and so are called internal. Form and the rest are objects of this and remote from it, and so are called external. If so, the six consciousnesses should not be called internal, since before reaching the mental position they are not the supports of the mind. Once they reach the mental position, the six consciousness elements are not lost, and before reaching the mental position they also do not go beyond the characteristic of mind. If it were otherwise, the mind element would be only in the past, and the six consciousnesses only in the present and future, which would contradict our own school's acceptance that all eighteen elements extend through the three times. Moreover, if future and present six consciousnesses lacked the characteristic of the mind element, then the past mind element should also not be established, since the characteristic does not change across the three times. Internal and external have been explained. Among the eighteen elements, how many belong to the same class (sabhaga) and how many to the class of that? The verse says:

法同分餘二，作不作自業。

The dharma element is of the same class; the other two are, with 'acting' and 'not acting' acting karma.

論曰：法同分者，謂一法界唯是同分。若境與識定為所緣，識於其中已生生法，此所緣境說名同分。無一法界不於其中已正當生無邊意識，由諸聖者決定生心，觀一切法皆為無我。彼除自體及俱有法，餘一切法皆為所緣。如是所除亦第二念心所緣境，此二念心緣一切境無不周遍，是故法界恆名同分。餘二者，謂餘十七界皆有同分及彼同分。何名同分、彼同分耶？謂作自業、不作自業。若作自業名為同分，不作自業名彼同分。此中眼界於有見色已正當見名同分眼，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：彼同分眼但有四種，謂不見色已正當滅及不生法。西方諸師說有五種：謂不生法復開為二，一有識屬、二無識屬，乃至身界應知亦然。意彼同分唯不生法。色界為眼已正當見名同分色，彼同分色亦有四種，謂非眼見已正當滅及不生法，廣說乃至觸界亦爾。各對自根應說自用，應知同分及彼同分。眼若於一是同分，於餘一切亦同分。彼同分亦如是，廣說乃至意界亦爾。色即不然，於見者是同分，於不見者是彼同分。所以者何？色有是事，謂一所見亦多所見，如觀月舞相撲等色。眼無是事，謂一眼根二能見色，眼不共故，依一相續建立同分及彼同分。色是共故，依多相續建立同分及彼同分。如說色界，聲香味觸應知亦爾。聲可如色。香味觸三至根方取，是不共故，一取非餘。理應如眼等，不應如色說。雖有是理而容有共。所以者何？香等三界於一及餘，皆有可生鼻等識義。眼等不然，故如色說。眼等六識同分彼同分生不生法故，如意界說。云何同分、彼同分義？根境識三更相交涉故名為分，或復分者是已作用，或復分者是所生觸，同有此分故名同分。與此相違名彼同分，由非同分與彼同分種類分同，名彼同分。已說同分及彼同分。十八界中幾見所斷、幾修所斷、幾非所斷？頌曰：

The treatise says: As for dharmas of the same class (sabhaga), the dharma-realm is simply of the same class. When an object and consciousness are fixed as the apprehended and the apprehending, the dharmas in which consciousness has arisen, is arising, or will arise, with that object as its support, are called of the same class. There is no dharma-realm in which limitless mental consciousnesses have not arisen, are not arising, and will not arise, because the noble ones necessarily give rise to minds that contemplate all dharmas as without self. All dharmas other than the thing's own nature and its co-existent dharmas are objects of apprehension. Likewise, what has been excluded is also the object of the second moment of mind, and these two moments of mind apprehend all objects without exception; therefore the dharma-realm is always called of the same class. As for the other two, that is, the other seventeen realms all have the same class and the counterpart class. What are they called, the same class and the counterpart class? They are the function that is performed and the function that is not performed. A realm whose function is performed is called the same class; one whose function is not performed is called the counterpart class. Here, the eye-realm that has seen, is seeing, or will see visible forms is called the eye of the same class. The explanation continues in this way up to the mind-realm, each to be described according to its own function with its own object. The Vaibhasika masters of Kashmir say: the eye of the counterpart class is of only four kinds, namely: the eye that has not seen forms, is not seeing them, and will not see them; that has ceased; and that is of the unarisen dharmas. The masters of the Western regions say there are five kinds: the unarisen dharmas are further divided into two, one belonging to a conscious being and one not belonging to a conscious being; and the same should be understood up to the body-realm. The counterpart class of the mind is only the unarisen dharmas. The form-realm that the eye has seen, is seeing, or will see is called form of the same class; form of the counterpart class also has four kinds, namely: form that the eye has not seen, is not seeing, and will not see; that has ceased; and that is of the unarisen dharmas; and the same holds up to the tangible-realm. For each, speak of its own function in relation to its own faculty, and understand the same class and the counterpart class accordingly. If the eye is of the same class in regard to one, it is of the same class in regard to all the others. The counterpart class is likewise, and so on up to the mind-realm. Form is not so: in regard to those who see it, it is of the same class; in regard to those who do not see it, it is of the counterpart class. Why? Because with form it happens that one form is seen by many, as in watching the moon, dances, wrestling, and the like. This does not happen with the eye, namely that one eye faculty is seen by two who see forms; because the eye is not common, the same class and the counterpart class are established in dependence on a single continuum. Because form is common, the same class and the counterpart class are established in dependence on many continua. As was said of the form-realm, sound, smell, taste, and touch should be understood likewise. Sound may be like form. Smell, taste, and touch are apprehended by the faculty only when they arrive, and are not common; one apprehends them and not others. By reason they should be like the eye and so on, and should not be spoken of like form. Although there is this reasoning, they may nonetheless be common. Why? Because the three realms of smell and so on have the meaning of being able to produce nose-consciousness and so on in one person and in others. The eye and so on are not so, and therefore are spoken of like form. The six consciousnesses, the eye-consciousness and the rest, are spoken of as the mind-realm is, since they are the same class, the counterpart class, and the unarisen dharmas. What is the meaning of the same class and the counterpart class? Because the faculty, object, and consciousness interact with one another, it is called a share (bhaga); or what is shared is the function already performed, or the contact that arises; since they have this share in common, it is called the same class. What is contrary to this is called the counterpart class; because what is not of the same class belongs to a kind that shares with the counterpart class, it is called the counterpart class. The same class and the counterpart class have been explained. Among the eighteen realms, how many are eliminated by seeing, how many by cultivation, and how many are not eliminated? The verse says:

十五唯修斷，後三界通三，

Fifteen are eliminated only by cultivation; the last three realms are of all three kinds,

不染非六生，色定非見斷。

The undefiled, the non-sixth-born, and form are definitely not eliminated by seeing.

論曰：十五界者，謂十色界及五識界。唯修斷者，此十五界唯修所斷。後三界者，意界、法界及意識界。通三者，謂此後三界各通三種。八十八隨眠及彼俱有法並隨行得，皆見所斷，諸餘有漏皆修所斷，一切無漏皆非所斷。豈不更有見所斷法，謂異生性及招惡趣身語業等，此與聖道極相違故。雖爾，此法非見所斷，略說彼相，謂不染法非六生色，定非見斷。其異生性是不染汙，無記性攝，已離欲者斷善根者猶成就故。此異生性若見所斷，苦法忍位應是異生。六謂意處，異此而生名非六生，是從眼等五根生義，即五識等。色謂一切身語業等。前及此色，定非見斷。所以者何？非迷諦理親發起故。如是已說見所斷等。十八界中幾是見、幾非見？頌曰：

The treatise says: The fifteen realms are the ten form realms and the five consciousness realms. Eliminated only by cultivation means these fifteen realms are eliminated only by cultivation. The last three realms are the mind-realm, the dharma-realm, and the mind-consciousness realm. Of all three kinds means that each of these last three realms is of all three kinds. The eighty-eight latent afflictions, together with their co-existent dharmas and the acquisitions that accompany them, are all eliminated by seeing; all other defiled dharmas are eliminated by cultivation; and all undefiled dharmas are not eliminated. Is there not some further dharma eliminated by seeing, namely the state of an ordinary being, and bodily and verbal actions that lead to evil destinies, since these are utterly contrary to the noble path? Even so, these dharmas are not eliminated by seeing. Their characteristics are briefly stated: the undefiled dharmas, the non-sixth-born, and form are definitely not eliminated by seeing. The state of an ordinary being is undefiled and included in the indeterminate, since even those who have abandoned desire and those who have cut off wholesome roots still possess it. If this state of an ordinary being were eliminated by seeing, then one at the stage of the acceptance of the dharma of suffering would still be an ordinary being. The sixth is the mind-sense-base; what arises otherwise than from it is called non-sixth-born, meaning it arises from the five faculties, namely the five consciousnesses and so on. Form means all bodily and verbal action and the like. The former and this form are definitely not eliminated by seeing. Why? Because they are not directly produced by delusion about the truths. Thus what is eliminated by seeing and so on has been explained. Among the eighteen realms, how many are seeing and how many are not seeing? The verse says:

眼法界一分，八種說名見，

The eye, and one part of the dharma-realm, of eight kinds, are called seeing;

五識俱生慧，非見不度故。

The wisdom born together with the five consciousnesses is not seeing, because it does not discriminate and decide.

眼見色同分，非彼能依識，

It is the eye that sees form, not the consciousness that depends on it;

傳說不能觀，彼障諸色故。

it is said that it cannot see forms that are obstructed.

論曰：眼全是見，法界一分八種是見，餘皆非見。何等為八？謂身見等五染汙見、世間正見、有學正見、無學正見。於法界中此八是見，所餘非見。身見等五，隨眠品中時至當說。世間正見，謂意識相應善有漏慧。有學正見，謂有學身中諸無漏見。無學正見，謂無學身中諸無漏見。譬如夜分晝分有雲無云，覩眾色像明昧有異，如是世間諸見有染無染。學無學見，觀察法相明昧不同。何故？世間正見唯意識相應，以五識俱生慧不能決度故，審慮為先決度名見。五識俱慧無如是能，以無分別是故非見。准此，所餘染無染慧及諸餘法非見應知。若爾，眼根不能決度，云何名見？以能明利觀照諸色故亦名見。若眼見者，餘識行時亦應名見。非一切眼皆能現見。誰能現見？謂同分眼與識合位能見非餘。若爾，則應彼能依識見色非眼。不爾，眼識定非能見。所以者何？傳說，不能觀障色故，現見壁等所障諸色則不能觀。若識見者，識無對故，壁等不礙應見障色。於被障色眼識不生，識既不生如何當見？眼識於彼何故不生？許眼見者眼有對故，於彼障色無見功能。識與所依一境轉故，可言於彼眼識不生。許識見者何緣不起？眼豈如身根境合方取而言有對故不見彼耶？又頗胝迦、瑠璃、雲母、水等所障云何得見？是故不由眼有對故，於彼障色無見功能。若爾，所執眼識云何？若於是處光明無隔，於彼障色眼識亦生。若於是處光明有隔，於彼障色眼識不生。識既不生，故不能見。然經說眼能見色者，是見所依，故說能見。如彼經言：意能識法。非意能識，以過去故。何者能識？謂是意識。意是識依，故說能識。或就所依說能依業，如世間說床座言聲。又如經言：眼所識色可愛可樂。然實非此可愛樂色是眼所識。又如經說：梵志當知，以眼為門唯為見色。故知眼識依眼門見。亦不應言門即是見，豈容經說以眼為見唯為見色？

The treatise says: The eye is entirely seeing; one part of the dharma-realm, of eight kinds, is seeing; all the others are not seeing. Which eight? They are the five defiled views, beginning with the view of self; worldly right view; right view of the learner; and right view of the one beyond learning. Within the dharma-realm these eight are seeing, and the rest are not. The five beginning with the view of self will be explained in due course in the chapter on latent afflictions. Worldly right view is wholesome defiled wisdom associated with mind-consciousness. Right view of the learner is the undefiled views in the person of a learner. Right view of the one beyond learning is the undefiled views in the person of one beyond learning. Just as, in the night or the day, with clouds or without clouds, the appearance of forms is clear or dim in different ways, so the worldly views are defiled or undefiled, and the views of learners and those beyond learning observe the characteristics of dharmas with differing clarity. Why? Worldly right view is associated only with mind-consciousness, because the wisdom born together with the five consciousnesses cannot discriminate and decide; what takes careful deliberation as its precondition and then decides is called view. The wisdom accompanying the five consciousnesses has no such capacity, and since it is without conceptual discrimination it is not view. By this the other defiled and undefiled wisdoms and all other dharmas should be understood as not view. If so, the eye faculty cannot discriminate and decide; why is it called seeing? Because it can illuminate and observe forms clearly and sharply, it too is called seeing. If what sees is the eye, then when other consciousnesses are operating it too should be called seeing. Not every eye is able to see directly. Which one can see directly? It is the eye of the same class, in the state of being united with consciousness, that can see, and no other. If so, then the consciousness that depends on it should see form, not the eye. It is not so; eye-consciousness is definitely not what sees. Why? It is said that it cannot observe obstructed forms: one sees directly that forms blocked by a wall and the like cannot be observed. If consciousness saw, then because consciousness has no resistance, it should see obstructed forms, with walls and the like not hindering it. Eye-consciousness does not arise toward an obstructed form; since consciousness does not arise, how could it see? Why does eye-consciousness not arise toward it? If you hold that the eye sees, it is because the eye has resistance that it has no power to see the obstructed form. Because consciousness and its support turn upon a single object, it can be said that eye-consciousness does not arise toward it. If you hold that consciousness sees, why does it not arise? Is it that the eye, like the body faculty, takes its object only on contact, and being said to have resistance does not see it? Moreover, how can one see through crystal, lapis lazuli, mica, water, and the like that obstruct? So it is not because the eye has resistance that it has no power to see the obstructed form. If so, what of the eye-consciousness you maintain? Where light is unbroken, eye-consciousness arises even toward an obstructed form. Where light is broken, eye-consciousness does not arise toward the obstructed form. Since consciousness does not arise, it cannot see. Yet the sutra says that the eye sees form; this speaks of the support of seeing, so it is said to see. As that sutra says: the mind knows dharmas. It is not the mind that knows, because it is past. What knows? It is the mind-consciousness. The mind is the support of consciousness, so it is said to know. Or one speaks of the action of the supported in terms of the support, as in the worldly saying that the bed and seat make a sound. Again, as the sutra says: the forms cognized by the eye are lovely and delightful. But in truth it is not the eye that cognizes these lovely and delightful forms. Again, as the sutra says: Brahmin, you should know that the eye is a door only for seeing forms. Therefore we know that eye-consciousness sees through the door of the eye. Nor should it be said that the door itself is seeing; how could the sutra allow taking the eye as seeing only for seeing forms?

若識能見誰復了別？見與了別二用何異？以即見色名了色故，譬如少分慧名能見亦能簡擇。如是少分識名能見亦能了別。有餘難言：若眼能見，眼是見者，誰是見用？此言非難，如共許識是能了別，然無了者。了用不同，見亦應爾。有餘復言：眼識能見，是見所依故，眼亦名能見。如鳴所依故，亦說鍾能鳴。若爾，眼根識所依，故應名能識。無如是失。世間同許眼識是見，由彼生時說能見色，不言識色。毘婆沙中亦作是說：若眼所得、眼識所受說名所見。是故但說眼名能見，不名能識。唯識現前說能識色，譬如說日名能作晝。經部諸師有作是說：如何共聚楂掣虛空眼色等緣生於眼識？此等於見孰為能所？唯法因果實無作用，為順世情假興言說，眼名能見、識名能了，智者於中不應封著。如世尊說：方域言詞不應堅執，世俗名想不應固求。然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。於見色時，為一眼見、為二眼見？此無定準。頌曰：

If consciousness can see, what then discerns? What is the difference between the two functions of seeing and discerning? Because seeing form is itself called discerning form, just as a small portion of wisdom is called able to see and also able to discriminate, so a small portion of consciousness is called able to see and also able to discern. Others object: if the eye can see, the eye is the seer; what is the function of seeing? This is no objection: it is like the commonly accepted view that consciousness is what discerns, yet there is no discerner. The function of discerning is different; seeing should be likewise. Others say: eye-consciousness can see, and because the eye is its support the eye too is called able to see, just as a bell is said to ring because it is the support of the sound. If so, then because the eye faculty is the support of consciousness it should be called able to cognize. There is no such fault. The world agrees that eye-consciousness is seeing, and when it arises one says it sees form, not that it cognizes form. The Vibhasha also says: what is obtained by the eye and received by eye-consciousness is called what is seen. So only the eye is called able to see, not able to cognize. Only when consciousness is present does one say it cognizes form, just as the sun is said to make the day. Some Sautrantika masters say: how, with the eye, forms, and other conditions gathered like a chu-chai in empty space, does eye-consciousness arise? Among these, which is the agent and which the object of seeing? There are only cause and effect among dharmas and in truth no agency; to accord with worldly feeling it is provisionally said that the eye is called able to see and consciousness able to discern, and the wise should not cling to this. As the World-Honored One said: do not hold stubbornly to regional expressions; do not insist on worldly names and notions. Yet the Kashmiri Vibhasha school says that the eye sees, the ear hears, the nose smells, the tongue tastes, the body feels, and the mind knows. When seeing form, is it seen by one eye or by two eyes? There is no fixed rule about this. The verse says:

或二眼俱時，見色分明故。

Sometimes with both eyes at once, because form is seen clearly.

論曰：阿毘達磨諸大論師鹹言：或時二眼俱見，以開二眼見色分明，開一眼時不分明故。又開一眼觸一眼時，便於現前見二月等，閉一觸一此事則無，是故或時二眼俱見。非所依別識成二分，住無方故不同礙色。若此宗說眼見耳聞乃至意了，彼所取境根正取時，為至不至？頌曰：

The treatise says: The great Abhidharma masters all say: sometimes both eyes see together, because when both eyes are open form is seen clearly, and when one eye is open it is not clear. Moreover, when one eye is open and one eye is touched, two moons and the like appear before one; this does not happen when one is closed and one touched; therefore sometimes both eyes see together. It is not that the supports differ and so consciousness becomes two parts; consciousness has no location, so it is unlike obstructive form. If, in this school, the eye sees, the ear hears, and so on up to the mind knows, then when the faculty properly takes its object, is the object reached or not reached? The verse says:

眼耳意根境，不至三相違。

The eye, the ear, and the mind take objects that are not reached; the other three are contrary to this.

論曰：眼耳意根取非至境，謂眼能見遠處諸色，眼中藥等則不能觀。耳亦能聞遠處聲響，逼耳根者則不能聞。若眼耳根唯取至境，則修定者應不修生天眼、耳根，如鼻根等。若眼能見不至色者，何故不能普見一切遠有障等不至諸色？如何磁石吸不至鐵，非吸一切不至鐵耶？執見至境亦同此難。何故不能普見一切眼藥籌等至眼諸色？又如鼻等能取至境，然不能取一切與根俱有香等。如是眼根雖見不至而非一切，耳根亦爾。意無色故，非能有至。有執：耳根通取至境及不至境，自耳中聲亦能聞故。所餘鼻等三有色根，與上相違唯取至境。如何知鼻唯取至香？由斷息時不嗅香故。云何名至？謂無間生。又諸極微為相觸不？迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙師說不相觸。所以者何？若諸極微遍體相觸，即有實物體相雜過。若觸一分，成有分失，然諸極微更無細分。若爾，何故相擊發聲？但由極微無間生故。若許相觸，擊石拊手體應相糅。不相觸者，聚色相擊云何不散？風界攝持故令不散。或有風界能有壞散，如劫壞時。或有風界能有成攝，如劫成時。云何三根由無間生名取至境？即由無間名取至境，謂於中間都無片物。又和合色許有分故，相觸無失。由許此理，毘婆沙文義善成立。故彼問言：諸是觸物為是觸為因故生？為非觸為因故生？諸非觸物為問亦爾。彼就此理為不定答，有時是觸為因生於非觸，謂和合物正離散時。有時非觸為因生於是觸，謂離散物正和合時。有時是觸為因生於是觸，謂和合物復和合時。有時非觸為因生於非觸，謂向遊塵同類相續。尊者世友說：諸極微相觸即應住至後念。然大德說：一切極微實不相觸，但由無間假立觸名。此大德意應可愛樂。若異此者，是諸極微應有間隙。中間既空，誰障其行許為有對？又離極微無和合色，和合相觸即觸極微。如可變礙，此亦應爾。又許極微若有方分，觸與不觸皆應有分。

The treatise says: The eye, ear, and mind faculties take objects that are not reached. For example, the eye can see distant forms, but cannot observe medicine and the like placed in the eye. The ear can also hear distant sounds, but cannot hear what presses against the ear faculty. If the eye and ear faculties took only objects that are reached, then those who cultivate meditation should not cultivate and produce the divine eye and divine ear, just as with the nose faculty and the like. If the eye can see forms that are not reached, why can it not see everything, all distant forms that are obstructed and so on? How is it that a magnet attracts iron that it does not reach, yet does not attract all iron that it does not reach? The view that it sees what it reaches faces the same objection: why can it not see all the eye-medicine sticks and other forms that touch the eye? Again, the nose and so on can take objects that are reached, yet they cannot take all the smells and so on that exist together with the faculty. So although the eye sees what it does not reach, it does not do so for everything, and the ear is likewise. The mind has no form, so it cannot have reaching. Some hold that the ear faculty takes both objects that are reached and those that are not, because it can also hear sound within the ear itself. The other three faculties with form, the nose and so on, are contrary to the above and take only objects that are reached. How do we know the nose takes only reached smell? Because when breathing is cut off, it does not smell. How is it called reached? It means arising without interval. Do ultimate particles touch one another? The Kashmiri Vibhasha masters say they do not touch. Why? If ultimate particles touched with their whole bodies, there would be the fault of the bodies of real things mixing together. If they touched with one part, they would have parts, yet ultimate particles have no finer parts. If so, why does their striking produce sound? It is only because ultimate particles arise without interval. If you allow that they touch, then when stones are struck or hands clapped, the substances should blend. If they do not touch, how do aggregates of form, when struck, not scatter? Because the wind element holds them together so that they do not scatter. There is a wind element that can destroy and scatter, as at the destruction of a world-age; and there is a wind element that can form and gather, as at the formation of a world-age. How do the three faculties take reached objects through arising without interval? It is by being without interval that they are said to take reached objects, meaning there is not a single thing in between. Moreover, since combined form is admitted to have parts, there is no fault in its touching. By accepting this principle, the meaning of the Vibhasha is well established. Therefore the question is put: are things that touch produced because of touching, or produced because of non-touching? The same question applies to things that do not touch. They give an indeterminate answer on this principle: at times what touches is the cause that produces what does not touch, namely when combined things are being dispersed; at times what does not touch is the cause that produces what touches, namely when dispersed things are being combined; at times what touches is the cause that produces what touches, namely when combined things are again combined; and at times what does not touch is the cause that produces what does not touch, namely the same-kind continuity of drifting dust. The Venerable Vasumitra said: ultimate particles that touch one another should remain until the next moment. But the Great Virtue said: in truth no ultimate particles touch one another; touch is only provisionally named because of arising without interval. This view of the Great Virtue is pleasing. If it were otherwise, ultimate particles would have gaps between them. If the middle is empty, what blocks their movement so that they are said to have resistance? Moreover, apart from ultimate particles there is no combined form; if combined things touch, they touch the ultimate particles. Just as with changeable resistance, so this too should be understood. Furthermore, if ultimate particles are admitted to have spatial parts, then touching and not touching should both involve parts.

若無方分，設許相觸亦無斯過。又眼等根，為於自境唯取等量，速疾轉故，如旋火輪見大山等？為於自境通取等量不等量耶？頌曰：

If they have no spatial parts, then even if they are admitted to touch there is no such fault. Further, do the eye and the other faculties take only an object of equal measure to themselves, because they turn so swiftly, as a whirling firebrand appears as a wheel and one sees a great mountain and so on? Or do they, toward their own objects, take both objects of equal and unequal measure? The verse says:

應知鼻等三，唯取等量境。

It should be known that the three, the nose and the rest, take only objects of equal measure.

論曰：前說至境鼻等三根，應知唯能取等量境。如根微量，境微亦然，相稱合生鼻等識故。眼耳不定，謂眼於色有時取小如見毛端，有時取大如暫開目見大山等，有時取等如見蒲桃。如是耳根，聽蚊雷等所發種種小大音聲，隨其所應小大等量。意無質礙，不可辯其形量差別。云何眼等諸根極微安布差別？眼根極微在眼星上傍布而住，如香荾花清澈映覆令無分散。有說：重累如丸而住，體清澈故，如頗胝迦不相障礙。耳根極微居耳穴內旋環而住，如卷樺皮。鼻根極微居鼻頞內背上面下，如雙爪甲。此初三根橫作行度處無高下，如冠花鬘。舌根極微布在舌上，形如半月。傳說：舌中如毛端量，非為舌根極微所遍。身根極微遍住身分，如身形量。女根極微形如鼓𣞙，男根極微形如指𩎽。眼根極微有時一切皆是同分，有時一切皆彼同分，有時一分是彼同分餘是同分。乃至舌根極微亦爾。身根極微定無一切皆是同分，乃至極熱捺落迦中猛焰纏身，猶有無量身根極微是彼同分。傳說：身根設遍發識身應散壞，以無根境各一極微為所依緣能發身識。五識決定積集多微，方成所依所緣性故。即由此理亦說極微名無見體，不可見故。如前所說識有六種，謂眼識界乃至意識，為如五識唯緣現在意識通緣三世非世，如是諸識依亦爾耶？不爾，云何？頌曰：

The treatise says: The three faculties of nose and so on, said earlier to take reached objects, should be known to take only objects of equal measure. As the faculty is minute in measure, so the object is minute too, because they correspond and so give rise to nose-consciousness and the rest. The eye and ear are not fixed: with form the eye sometimes takes a small image and sees the tip of a hair, sometimes takes a large image and sees a great mountain on briefly opening the eyes, and sometimes takes an image of equal size and sees a grape. Likewise the ear faculty, hearing the various small and large sounds emitted by mosquitoes, thunder, and so on, takes small or large measure as appropriate. The mind has no material obstruction, so its differences of shape and measure cannot be determined. How, then, are the ultimate particles of the eye and other faculties arranged differently? The ultimate particles of the eye faculty lie spread out across the pupil, like clear and transparent flowers of the sugar-cane type covering it so that they do not scatter. Some say they are piled up like pellets, and because their substance is clear, they do not obstruct one another, like crystal. The ultimate particles of the ear faculty lie inside the ear cavity, coiled round like rolled birch bark. The ultimate particles of the nose faculty lie inside the nasal bridge, facing upward on the back and downward on the front, like two fingernails. These first three faculties lie transversely in rows without height or depth, like a garland on a crown. The ultimate particles of the tongue faculty are spread on the tongue in the shape of a half-moon. It is said that on the tongue there is a spot the size of a hair tip that is not pervaded by the ultimate particles of the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty pervade the parts of the body, in the measure of the body's shape. The ultimate particles of the female faculty are shaped like a drum, and those of the male faculty like a finger-tip. The ultimate particles of the eye faculty are sometimes all of the same class, sometimes all of the counterpart class, and sometimes one part is of the counterpart class and the rest of the same class. The same holds up to the tongue faculty. The ultimate particles of the body faculty are definitely never all of the same class; even in the hottest hell, with raging flames wrapped around the body, there are still countless ultimate particles of the body faculty that are of the counterpart class. It is said that if the body faculty pervaded everything, the body would be scattered and destroyed once consciousness arose; this is because a single ultimate particle each of faculty and object, without any more, can serve as the support and the object condition that give rise to body-consciousness. Only the accumulation of many particles makes up the nature of a support and an object. By this same reasoning, the ultimate particle is also said to have an unseeable nature, because it cannot be seen. As was said before, consciousness is of six kinds, namely eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness; the five consciousnesses take only the present, while mind-consciousness takes the three times and what is outside time. Are the supports of the consciousnesses likewise? No. How, then? The verse says:

後依唯過去，五識依或俱。

The last depends only on the past; the five consciousnesses depend on the past or the simultaneous.

論曰：意識唯依無間滅意，眼等五識所依或俱，或言表此亦依過去。眼是眼識俱生所依，如是乃至身是身識俱生所依，同現世故。無間滅意是過去依。此五識身所依各二，謂眼等五是別所依，意根為五通所依性，故如是說。若是眼識所依性者，即是眼識等無間緣耶？設是眼識等無間緣者，復是眼識所依性耶？應作四句。第一句，謂俱生眼根。第二句，謂無間滅心所法界。第三句，謂過去意根。第四句，謂除所說法。乃至身識亦爾，各各應說自根。意識應作順前句答，謂是意識所依性者，定是意識等無間緣。有是意識等無間緣，非與意識為所依性，謂無間滅心所法界。何因識起俱託二緣，得所依名在根非境？頌曰：

The treatise says: Mind-consciousness depends only on the mind that has just ceased without interval. The supports of the five consciousnesses, the eye and the rest, are either simultaneous, and the word "or" indicates that they also depend on the past. The eye is the simultaneous support of eye-consciousness, and likewise up to the body, which is the simultaneous support of body-consciousness, because they are of the present. The mind that has just ceased without interval is the past support. Each of these groups of five consciousnesses thus has two supports: the eye and the other four are the particular supports, and the mind faculty is the common support for all five, which is why it is said so. Is what has the nature of a support of eye-consciousness the immediately preceding condition of eye-consciousness? And if something is the immediately preceding condition of eye-consciousness, does it have the nature of a support of eye-consciousness? A four-way alternative should be made. First, the simultaneous eye faculty. Second, the mental dharma-realm that has just ceased without interval. Third, the past mind faculty. Fourth, whatever is other than what has been said. The same holds up to body-consciousness, each to be spoken of with its own faculty. For mind-consciousness, answer by following the earlier alternative: whatever has the nature of a support of mind-consciousness is definitely the immediately preceding condition of mind-consciousness. There is what is the immediately preceding condition of mind-consciousness but is not its support, namely the mental dharma-realm that has just ceased without interval. For what reason, when consciousness arises, relying on two conditions together, is the name of support given to the faculty and not to the object? The verse says:

隨根變識異，故眼等名依。

Because consciousness differs as the faculty changes, the eye and the rest are called supports.

論曰：眼等即是眼等六界，由眼等根有轉變故。諸識轉異，隨根增損識明昧故。非色等變令識有異，以識隨根不隨境故。依名唯在眼等非餘。何緣色等正是所識而名眼識，乃至意識不名色識乃至法識？頌曰：

The treatise says: The eye and the rest are the six realms of the eye and so on, because they change through the faculties of the eye and so on. The consciousnesses vary, because as the faculty increases or decreases the clarity or dimness of consciousness follows. It is not that a change in form and the like makes consciousness different, since consciousness follows the faculty and not the object. The name of support belongs only to the eye and the rest, not to others. For what reason, though form and the rest are exactly what is cognized, is it called eye-consciousness, and up to mind-consciousness is not called form-consciousness up to dharma-consciousness? The verse says:

彼及不共因，故隨根說識。

Because of that, and because of the uncommon cause, consciousness is named according to the faculty.

論曰：彼謂前說眼等名依，根是依故隨根說識。及不共者，謂眼唯自眼識所依，色亦通為他身眼識及通自他意識所取，乃至身觸應知亦爾，由所依勝及不共因故識得名。隨根非境，如名鼓聲及麥牙等。隨身所住眼見色時，身眼色識地為同不？應言此四或異或同，謂生欲界，若以自地眼見自地色，四皆自地。若以初靜慮眼見欲界色，身色慾界、眼識初定。見初定色，身屬欲界、三屬初定。若以二靜慮眼見欲界色，身色慾界、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眼見下地色或自地色，如理應思。生初靜慮，若以自地眼見自地色，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。如是若以三四靜慮地眼見自地色或下上色，如理應思。如是生二三四靜慮，以自他地眼見自他地色，如理應思。餘界亦應如是分別。今當略辯此決定相。頌曰：

The treatise says: "That" refers to the earlier statement that the eye and the rest are called supports; since the faculty is the support, consciousness is named according to the faculty. And the uncommon means that the eye is the support only of its own eye-consciousness, whereas form is also taken by the eye-consciousness of other bodies and by the mind-consciousness of oneself and others; the same holds for touch up to the body, to be understood likewise. Because the support is superior and the cause is uncommon, consciousness obtains its name. It follows the faculty, not the object, as with the names of a drum's sound and of a sprout of wheat, and the like. When, according to the body in which one dwells, one sees form with the eye, are the planes of body, eye, form, and consciousness the same or not? It should be said that these four may be different or the same. For one born in the desire realm, if one sees form of one's own plane with the eye of one's own plane, all four are of one's own plane. If one sees desire-realm form with the eye of the first meditation, the body and the form are of the desire realm and the eye and consciousness of the first meditation. In seeing form of the first meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm and the other three to the first meditation. If one sees desire-realm form with the eye of the second meditation, the body and form are of the desire realm, the eye is of the second meditation, and the consciousness is of the first meditation. In seeing form of the first meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm, the eye to the second meditation, and the form and consciousness to the first meditation. In seeing form of the second meditation, the body belongs to the desire realm, the eye and form to the second meditation, and the consciousness to the first meditation. Likewise, if one sees form of a lower plane or of one's own plane with the eye of the third or fourth meditation plane, one should reflect according to the principle. For one born in the first meditation, if one sees form of one's own plane with the eye of one's own plane, all four are of the same plane; in seeing desire-realm form, three belong to the first meditation and the form to the desire realm. If one sees form of the first meditation with the eye of the second meditation, three belong to the first meditation and the eye to the second. In seeing desire-realm form, the body and consciousness belong to the first meditation, the form to the desire realm, and the eye to the second meditation. In seeing form of the second meditation, the body and consciousness belong to the first meditation and the eye and form to the second meditation. Likewise, if one sees form of one's own plane or of lower and higher planes with the eye of the third or fourth meditation plane, one should reflect according to the principle. Likewise for those born in the second, third, and fourth meditations, seeing forms of one's own and other planes with the eye of one's own and other planes, one should reflect according to the principle. Other realms should be analyzed in the same way. Now the determinate characteristics of this should be briefly set out. The verse says:

眼不下於身，色識非上眼，

The eye is not lower than the body; form and consciousness are not higher than the eye;

色於識一切，二於身亦然。

form is, in relation to consciousness, in all cases; and the two in relation to the body likewise.

如眼耳亦然，次三皆自地，

As with the eye, so with the ear; the next three are all of their own plane;

身識自下地，意不定應知。

body-consciousness is of its own or a lower plane; the mind is indeterminate, to be understood.

論曰：身眼色三皆通五地，謂在欲界四靜慮中，眼識唯在欲界初定。此中眼根望身生地，或等或上終不居下。色識望眼等下非上，下眼不能見上色故、上識不依下地眼故。色望於識通等上下，色識於身如色於識。廣說耳界應知如眼，謂耳不下於身，聲識非上耳，聲於識一切。二於身亦然，隨其所應廣如眼釋。鼻舌身三總皆自地，於中別者，謂身與觸其地必同。識望觸身或自或下，自謂若生欲界初定，生上三定謂之為下。應知意界四事不定，謂意有時與身識法四皆同地，有時上下。身唯五地，三通一切。於遊等至及受生時，隨其所應或同或異，如後定品當廣分別。為捨繁文故今未辯，前後再述用少功多。傍論已周，應辯正論。今當思擇，十八界中誰六識內幾識所識？幾常、幾無常？幾根、幾非根？頌曰。

The treatise says: The body, eye and visible form all extend through five levels; that is, within the four dhyanas of the desire realm, eye-consciousness exists only in the first stage of concentration of the desire realm. Here the eye faculty, relative to the level where the body is born, is either equal to it or higher, but never lower. Visual form and consciousness, relative to the eye, are equal or lower and not higher: a lower eye cannot see a higher form, and a higher consciousness does not depend on a lower eye. Form, relative to consciousness, extends to equal, higher and lower levels; consciousness and form are to the body as form is to consciousness. As for the ear element and so on, one should know it is like the eye: the ear is not lower than the body, auditory consciousness is not higher than the ear, and sound relative to consciousness covers all levels. The relation of the two to the body also follows the same pattern, to be explained at length as for the eye according to what applies. The nose, tongue and body, all three, are entirely of their own level; in distinguishing among them, the body and the tangible must be of the same level. Consciousness, relative to the tangible and body, is either of its own level or lower: if one is born in the first stage of concentration of the desire realm, being born in the upper three stages of concentration is called lower. One should know that the four matters of the mind element are indeterminate: the mind sometimes has the same level as the four, namely body-consciousness and mental objects, and sometimes higher or lower. The body belongs to only five levels, while the other three extend through all. In wandering, in attainments, and at the time of rebirth, it is the same or different according to what applies, as should be distinguished at length in the chapter on concentration. To avoid prolixity it is not discussed here; to repeat it before and after would take little effort but yield much. The digression is now complete, and we should turn to the main discussion. Now one should consider, among the eighteen elements, which are known by how many of the six consciousnesses? Which are permanent and which impermanent? Which are faculties and which are not? The verse says:

五外二所識，常法界無為，

The five external ones are known by two, the permanent is the element of mental objects, the unconditioned,

法一分是根，並內界十二。

One part of mental objects is a faculty, together with the twelve internal elements.

論曰：十八界中色等五界，如其次第眼等五識各一所識，又總皆是意識所識。如是五界各六識中二識所識。由此準知，餘十三界一切唯是意識所識，非五識身所緣境故。十八界中無有一界全是常者，唯法一分無為是常，義準無常法餘餘界。又經中說二十二根，謂眼根、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，皆越經中六處次第，於命根後方說意根，有所緣故。如是所說二十二根，十八界中內十二界法一分攝。法一分者，命等十一、後三一分，法界攝故。內十二者，眼等五根如自名攝，意根通是七心界攝，後三一分意意識攝，女根、男根即是身界一分所攝。如後當辯。義準所餘，色等五界法界一分皆體非根。

The treatise says: Among the eighteen elements, the five elements of form and so on, in this order, are each known by one of the five consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and so on, and all are also known by mental consciousness. Thus each of the five elements is known by two of the six consciousnesses. From this it follows that the other thirteen elements are all known only by mental consciousness, because they are not objects of the five consciousness groups. Among the eighteen elements there is not one that is entirely permanent; only one part of the element of mental objects, the unconditioned, is permanent, and by implication the other dharmas and other elements are impermanent. Again, the sutras speak of twenty-two faculties, namely: the eye faculty, ear faculty, nose faculty, tongue faculty, body faculty, mind faculty, female faculty, male faculty, life faculty, faculty of pleasure, faculty of pain, faculty of joy, faculty of sorrow, faculty of equanimity, faculty of faith, faculty of effort, faculty of mindfulness, faculty of concentration, faculty of wisdom, the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, the faculty of final knowledge, and the faculty of one who has fully known. The great masters of the Abhidharma all depart from the order of the six sense bases in the sutras and speak of the mind faculty only after the life faculty, because it has objects. The twenty-two faculties spoken of in this way are included in the twelve internal elements and in one part of the element of mental objects. As for one part of mental objects: the eleven beginning with life, and one part of the last three, are included in the element of mental objects. As for the twelve internal ones: the five faculties from eye onward are included under their own names; the mind faculty is entirely included in the seven mind elements; one part of the last three is included in the mind and mental consciousness; and the female and male faculties are included in one part of the body element, as will be explained later. By implication, the other elements, the five elements of form and so on, and one part of mental objects, are not faculties in their nature.