成唯識論述記 4.335

4.335

述曰：下文有三：一、顯所執彰能執心；二、明執心顯唯第八；三、破異計非能執受。此即初也。五根在自身，非己相分、他身。五根依處，除聲，皆非執受，故《對法》執受九處除聲，聲非所執故。問曰：何以聲非所執受？以有間故。又聲疎斷，故非所執。然五十五等亦說是執受，以依執故，非生執受，如前已說。唯現在世是有情故，可有執受，過、未非也。經部去、來無，薩婆多非過、未，此出所受。彼唯身根能生覺受，餘根等同聚亦名執受。其身識轉時名為執受，身識不轉亦名執受，是彼類故。此等所執受法，定由有已能執受心持令不壞。經雖但言有色根身是有執受，自非能執。自若能執，應別有所執。既無別所執，而言有執受，故知有他能執受自也。

The Commentary states: The text below has three parts: first, revealing what is appropriated to demonstrate the mind capable of appropriating; second, explaining the appropriating mind to show that it is only the eighth [consciousness]; third, refuting divergent positions that they are not capable of appropriating. This is the first. The five faculties reside in one's own body, not as one's own nimittabhāga or another's body. The bases of the five faculties, except for sound, are all appropriated; hence the Abhidharma-samuccaya [states] that among the nine bases of appropriation, sound is excluded, because sound is not what is appropriated. Question: Why is sound not what is appropriated? Because it has intervals. Moreover, sound is loose and interrupted; hence it is not what is appropriated. However, fascicle 55 and others also say that it is appropriated, but because it relies on what is appropriated, it does not produce appropriation, as explained earlier. Only in the present life, being a sentient being, can there be appropriation; past and future are not. The Sautrāntika holds that past and future are non-existent; the Sarvāstivādin holds they are not past and future; this brings forth what is appropriated. Only the body faculty can produce tactile sensation (vedanā), while the remaining faculties and the like, sharing the same aggregation, are also called appropriated. When the body consciousness operates, it is called appropriated; even when the body consciousness does not operate, it is also called appropriated, because it belongs to that category. These appropriated phenomena must definitely be held and kept from deteriorating by an existing mind capable of appropriating. Although the sūtra merely says that the body with material faculties has appropriation, it is not itself capable of appropriating. If it were itself capable of appropriating, there should be another object of appropriation. Since there is no other object of appropriation and yet it is said to have appropriation, we know that there is another [entity] capable of appropriating oneself.