瑜伽論記 9.238

9.238

泰云：遍計執心名分別戲論有所依所緣，西方三釋，初云：分別所依是六根，遍計執分別是七識及第六意識，第六意識共五識同時起者，雖不親依五根。然與五識不相離故亦說五根為所依，從五識同時分別意識後更生意識計度五塵，故亦說意識展轉依五根，故意識通說六根是所依也，所緣是六塵可解，二釋云：所依是自五蘊身，所緣是他身及器世界，三釋云：所依是義，所緣是名，此方三無性論先有此釋，色蘊等餘四蘊乃至涅槃想者色等名事者，是名所目，以名義為分別，緣名起計度想起言說，以名想言說為因故起分別，分別為名想言說所攝所顯故，是分別戲論也，所以唯說此三分別能生所依所緣者，由此分別是法執計度，一切品類熏成種子時，眾生世界及器世界從此三分別種子以生萬物所依所緣故也，後五分別是皮肉煩惱依此三法執起，故不能親及所依所緣眾多品也。

Tai says: The parikalpita mind is called the 'proliferation of conceptualisation', which has bases (āśraya) and objects (ālambana). In the Western regions there are three interpretations. The first says: the base of conceptualisation is the six sense-faculties; the parikalpita conceptualisation consists of the seventh consciousness and the sixth mental consciousness. The sixth mental consciousness, when arising simultaneously with the five consciousnesses, although not directly supported by the five sense-faculties, is not separate from the five consciousnesses, and hence the five sense-faculties are also spoken of as its base. After the mental consciousness that conceptualises simultaneously with the five consciousnesses, there further arises a mental consciousness that calculates the five sense-objects; therefore, it is also said that the mental consciousness depends indirectly on the five sense-faculties. Thus, speaking broadly of the mental consciousness, all six sense-faculties are its bases. That the objects are the six sense-objects is understandable. The second interpretation says: the base is one's own body of the five aggregates, and the objects are the bodies of others and the receptacle world. The third interpretation says: the base is the referent (artha), and the object is the name (nāma); here [in China], the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanwuxing lun) previously held this interpretation. Regarding the words 'the notion of the form aggregate, the remaining four aggregates, up to nirvāṇa', the nominal things such as form are that which is designated by names. Taking name and referent as conceptualisation, one takes names as objects and gives rise to calculation; one takes notions and gives rise to speech. Because name, notion, and speech serve as causes, conceptualisation arises; because conceptualisation is comprised and manifested by name, notion, and speech, it is the proliferation of conceptualisation. The reason why only these three conceptualisations are said to generate the bases and objects is that these conceptualisations are calculations of dharma-grasping. When all varieties are perfumed into seeds, the sentient world and the receptacle world are generated from the seeds of these three conceptualisations as the bases and objects of all things. The latter five conceptualisations are superficial afflictions arising in reliance on these three dharma-graspings; hence they cannot directly reach the numerous varieties of bases and objects.