成唯識論述記 3.420

3.420

述曰：觸能生受，即是受因。既領於因，可名因受，名自性受，於理豈成？此難名破：次下第七，彼復救言，如王食邑，非食土田。土田所生諸禾稼等，是王所食。言食邑者，從所依說，以邑之體即土田故，受例亦然。觸如土田，受如禾稼；受是觸果，觸是受因。受能領觸所生受體，即自領義，名自性受。言領觸者，從所依說，如言食邑，食彼所生。

The Commentary states: Contact can generate sensation, so it is the cause of sensation. Since it experiences the cause, it might be called 'causal sensation'; how could calling it 'sensation of intrinsic nature' be logically established? This challenge refutes the name. Next, seventh, they rescue [their position] again, saying: Just as a king consumes the revenues of a town, but does not consume the land itself; the crops and so forth produced by the land are what the king consumes. Calling it 'consuming the town' is spoken in terms of what they depend on, because the entity of the town is the land; sensation is analogous to this. Contact is like the land, and sensation is like the crops; sensation is the effect of contact, and contact is the cause of sensation. Sensation can experience the entity of sensation produced by contact, which means self-experiencing, and is called 'sensation of intrinsic nature'. Saying that it 'experiences contact' is spoken in terms of what it depends on, just like saying 'consuming the town' means consuming what is produced from it.