成唯識論述記 3.75

3.75

述曰：本識俱時，心所五數體非自在，依他生起，故非所熏。王雖要有心所方起，不言依他，得名王故，是自在義，此《攝論》無。受熏何妨？如下「觸等，亦如是」中解。亦遮無為，以堅密故，不受熏習，如堅石等，故虛空等不可熏習。若爾，識上生等假法，應可受熏？今依他攝，自無實體，依實說假故。又此應言，若非堅密，有體、自在，乃可受熏。初簡無為，次簡假法，後簡心所，此遮無為、假法、心所、依他、堅密，故非所熏。不是說者，擬今說故。又此不言實有體者，假法先無，更何須簡。若爾，空等無為如何？若言真如即非無記，言非擇等假，同生等假法不論。由此故應第一說善，無明簡真如，由此知非也，亦遮熏於假識類等。若可熏習即是所熏，亦應異身得成熏習。

The Commentary states: The five mental factors concomitant with the fundamental consciousness are not independent in entity and arise dependent on others; therefore they are not the perfumed. Although the lord necessarily requires mental factors to arise, it is not called dependent on others, for it obtains the designation 'lord,' which is the meaning of being independent; this is not in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. What would be the harm in their receiving perfuming? This is explained below under 'contact and so forth are also like this.' It also excludes the unconditioned, because, being dense and solid, it does not receive perfuming, like solid stone and the like; hence space and the like cannot be perfumed. If so, should nominal dharmas on consciousness such as arising and so forth be capable of receiving perfuming? Now, they are subsumed under dependent-on-others and possess no real entity of their own, for the nominal is spoken of on the basis of the real. Furthermore, one should say here: If it is not dense and solid, possesses an entity, and is independent, only then can it receive perfuming. The first eliminates the unconditioned, the second eliminates nominal dharmas, and the last eliminates mental factors; this excludes the unconditioned, nominal dharmas, mental factors, what is dependent on others, and the dense and solid; therefore they are not the perfumed. It was not said this way by the author because it is intended to be stated now. Moreover, the reason why having a real entity is not mentioned here is that nominal dharmas do not exist in the first place, so why would one need to eliminate them further? If so, what about the unconditioned such as space? If one speaks of tathatā, it is not neutral; if one speaks of the non-deliberate-cessation and so forth as nominal, like nominal dharmas such as arising, they are not discussed. For this reason, the first explanation is good; ignorance eliminates tathatā, and from this one knows it is incorrect; it also excludes perfuming upon nominal classes of consciousness and so forth. If being perfumable made it the perfumed, perfuming across different bodies should also be established.