成唯識論述記 4.778

4.778

今言因緣依者，令知寬遍故。若言俱有依，即種、果同時，應名俱有依；以緣簡別，顯增上緣故非種子。若爾俱時心所應是此緣，彼非所依故。心王是所依，唯種相似故後簡之，如下當辨。若言：無間依即前滅種子望後種子應是此依，簡異彼故言等無間緣依。若爾前念心所應是此依，是此緣故。不爾，心所非是所依。言等無間復是所依故，復雙簡也。種子所依辨體生故，言必不生。增上緣依隨須與力不障彼故，言必不轉。開導之依顯開彼路導彼生故，言必不起。三文有異。

Now, speaking of the 'basis as causal condition' makes known its broad and pervasive scope. If one were to speak of the 'simultaneous basis', then seeds and fruits being at the same time should be called 'simultaneous basis'; by distinguishing it through conditions, it reveals the predominant condition and is therefore not the seed. If so, simultaneous caitasikas should be this condition, [yet] they are not the basis. The cittarāja is the basis; only seeds are analogous [to it], hence it is distinguished later, as will be explained below. If one were to speak of the 'immediate basis', then the ceased seed of the preceding moment relative to the subsequent seed should be this basis; to distinguish it from that, it is called the 'basis as equal-and-immediate condition'. If so, the caitasikas of the preceding moment should be this basis, because they are this condition. Not so: caitasikas are not the basis. Saying 'equal-and-immediate' and moreover 'being a basis' double-excludes them as well. The seed basis determines the arising of the entity, hence it says 'definitely does not arise'. The basis as predominant condition imparts force as needed and does not obstruct it, hence it says 'definitely does not function'. The opening-and-guiding basis reveals opening the way and guiding its arising, hence it says 'definitely does not arise'. The three passages have their differences.