成唯識論述記 3.447

3.447

述曰：五十五說：由四等故說名相應，謂事等、處等、時等、所依等。事、處相似，名之為等；時、依定一，名之為等，正與此同。今約見分為行相，影像相分為所緣，自體名事。等者，相似義，體各唯一，境相相似，故所緣、事皆名為等。以觸等五相，託本識相生，所緣既相似，故名為等。唯識為宗，不約本質名為所緣，亦非影像名為行相。時謂剎那，定同一世。依謂依根，俱有、無間，如下當辨。不取種子，以各別故。即以四義解頌相應，謂除行相，或雖不同，亦兼取彼。《瑜伽論》等第一卷說「同一所緣，不同一行相」，以境相似，故說名為同，其實各別。此約實義名所緣等，彼約相同名同一所緣。又此約影像說為相分，名所緣等，相各別故；彼約本質說為所緣，故名為同，亦不違也。下此論文許有二故，如《樞要》中釋此疑難。此中五義，各有所簡，時簡前後，依簡別識，行簡依同，其境各別；緣簡別見，事簡體多。雖具上義，若事不等，不名相應，如五與意，唯依、事簡，或但四義，唯除行相，以各別故，一一應思，非無所以。上來已解相應門訖。

The Commentary states: Fascicle fifty-five says: "On account of four equalities, it is called associated: namely, equality of entity, equality of sphere, equality of time, and equality of basis." When entity and sphere are similar, they are called equal; when time and basis are definitively one, they are called equal. This is precisely the same as here. Now, taking the darśanabhāga as the ākāra, the reflection-nimittabhāga as the objective support, and the intrinsic nature as the entity: "equal" means similar; the entities are each unique, and the objective marks are similar, so both the objective support and the entity are called equal. Because the five [mental factors] such as contact arise relying upon the marks of the basic consciousness, their objective supports are already similar, and are therefore called equal. Taking Vijñaptimātra as the principle, one does not take the original essence as the objective support, nor does one take the reflection as the ākāra. "Time" means the kṣaṇa, definitively identical in the same period of time. "Basis" means the supporting faculties, both simultaneous and immediately antecedent, as will be distinguished below. Bījas are not taken, because they are distinct. Thus, the verse's term "associated" is explained by four meanings—namely, excluding the ākāra, or though they are not identical, including that as well. The first fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi and elsewhere states: "Having the same single objective support, but not having the same single ākāra." Because the objects are similar, they are said to be the same, but in reality they are distinct. The present [treatise] speaks of the objective support being equal from the perspective of real meaning, while that text speaks of having the same single objective support from the perspective of their marks being identical. Furthermore, the present text treats the reflection as the nimittabhāga and calls the objective support equal because the marks are distinct; that text treats the original essence as the objective support and therefore calls it the same, which is also not contradictory. Below, this treatise allows for both, as explained in the resolution of this doubt in the Shuyao. Among these five meanings, each eliminates something: time eliminates before and after; basis eliminates another consciousness; ākāra eliminates having the same basis while the objects are distinct; objective support eliminates a different darśana; entity eliminates plurality of substance. Although possessing the above meanings, if the entities are not equal, they are not called associated—just as with the five [sensory consciousnesses] and the mental consciousness, they are eliminated only by basis and entity; or there are only four meanings, excluding solely the ākāra because they are distinct. Each should be reflected upon; none is without reason. The section explaining association above is concluded.