瑜伽論記 13.366

13.366

前中，先舉例答。由彼意識乃至非彼境識，法處所攝者，汝前引經緣意及法意識得生，即執定有法處之法，現見意緣過未心識，豈可得言所緣識是法處攝耶？過未識雖為意所緣不可依經執為法處，亦過未法雖為意所緣不可依經執法為有。應立量云：去來二世意所緣境諸法色等法，非法處收，緣去來世識故以意識之所行故，如去來世所緣六識。

Within the former, it first answers by citing an analogy. "Because that mental consciousness... is not a consciousness of that object subsumed under the dharma base": you previously cited the sūtra that mental consciousness arises conditioned upon the mind and dharmas, and you thereby grasped that the dharma of the dharma base definitely exists. But we presently see the mind taking past and future minds and consciousnesses as its object; how could one say that the consciousness taken as an object is subsumed under the dharma base? Although past and future consciousnesses are taken as objects by the mind, one cannot rely on the sūtra to grasp them as the dharma base; likewise, although past and future dharmas are taken as objects by the mind, one cannot rely on the sūtra to grasp those dharmas as existent. A formal inference should be established: 'Phenomena such as forms taken as objects by the mind in the two periods of past and future are not subsumed under the dharma base; because they are objects taken as cognizing past and future consciousnesses, since they are within the domain of the mental consciousness; just like the six consciousnesses taken as objects belonging to the past and future periods.'