瑜伽論記 13.133

13.133

其護法唯有二種五根，第八、第六二識所變，第七唯緣第八，為我家之我，即為我所故。護月難法曰：若上不緣下外器者，何故晴生天眼第八緣也，又云此非第八境，故不緣，唯意所行，若爾心無境無，意不緣此，第八次不緣，其眼應無，若爾如五識非第八境意不緣，此五識豈即應無，識是見分所取於所緣，此眼非見分何得為例，亦隨識為見分，故同五識。

Dharmapāla holds that there are only two kinds of five sense-faculties, which are transformed by the eighth and sixth consciousnesses, while the seventh takes only the eighth as the 'I' belonging to my own home, which thereby constitutes 'mine'. Candramati challenged Dharmapāla, saying: If an upper [realm] does not take a lower external vessel as object, why is the heavenly eye of an eye-clear birth taken as an object by the eighth? And it is said that this is not an object of the eighth consciousness, hence it does not cognize it, being an object of mental consciousness alone. If so, when mind is absent, the object is absent; if the mental consciousness does not cognize this, and the eighth successively does not cognize it, then that eye would not exist. If so, just as the five consciousnesses are not objects of the eighth and are not cognized by the mental consciousness, could it be that these five consciousnesses must therefore not exist? Consciousness is the grāhaka (perceiver aspect) in grasping what is cognized; this eye is not the perceiver aspect, so how can it serve as a parallel? It also follows consciousness to be the perceiver aspect, so it is the same as the five consciousnesses.