成唯識論述記 3.273

3.273

述曰：由不離識，故言唯識，此意即是非離識外別有實物，故名唯識。如真如性，識雖不變，離識外無，故名唯識，唯識但遮心外法故。若爾，心所亦不離識，應名唯識？此亦不然，心所不依識之自體，別有行相，不可例同；然識相應，亦不離識，故並唯識。問：有漏種中有三界種，如在欲界、上界善等種，不離於識體，即名無記性。體不離於識，應名欲界繫，此義應思。答：不然，繫據縛義，即法體上差別義故，三界繫別。然性即是體類義故，同無記性，仍未了知。此中三性種隨識皆無記，亦應煩惱種隨識非煩惱，如是一切皆如理思。

The Commentary states: Because they are not apart from consciousness, it is called vijñapti-mātra. This meaning is: because there is no separate real entity outside consciousness, it is called vijñapti-mātra. Just like the nature of tathatā, although consciousness does not transform it, it does not exist outside consciousness, and so is called vijñapti-mātra, for vijñapti-mātra merely negates dharmas external to citta. If so, mental factors are also not apart from consciousness, so should they be called vijñapti-mātra? This is also not the case: mental factors do not rely on the essence of consciousness and possess separate ākāras, so they cannot be equated; yet being associated with consciousness, they are also not apart from consciousness, and thus both are vijñapti-mātra. Question: Among contaminated seeds there are seeds of the three realms; for instance, when in the desire realm, wholesome seeds and so forth of higher realms are not apart from the essence of consciousness, and thus are termed indeterminate in nature. If their essence is not apart from consciousness, should they be called bound to the desire realm? This point should be considered. Answer: Not so. 'Bound' is based on the meaning of bondage; because it is a distinct meaning upon the essence of a dharma, their binding to the three realms is distinct. However, 'nature' refers to the essence and class, and thus they share an indeterminate nature, though this has not yet been fully understood. Here, just as seeds of the three natures follow consciousness in being indeterminate, so too should seeds of afflictions follow consciousness in not being afflictions. All such matters should be contemplated in accordance with principle.