成唯識論述記 4.932

4.932

述曰：謂彼論以各別依故，六種轉識非能執受，五識不成。然第六識不別依色根，何得以此因為比量？如前十證第四有證，彼論雖言各別依故不能執受，即是顯彼非遍依故不能執受。若不爾者，各別依故，即無同喻。應云：六種轉識非能執受；非遍依故；如電光等。今取言非遍依因故與此為不定，為如電等非遍依故。眼等六識不能執受有色根身，為如所許第八識性非遍依故，我此六識而能遍執有色根身。因既無不定，故知第八亦依色根。

[The Commentary states:] This means that that treatise states that because they have individual supports, the six active consciousnesses cannot appropriate; the five consciousnesses are not established. However, the sixth consciousness does not individually rely on physical sense-faculties; how could one use this reason as an inference? As in the fourth proof among the previous ten proofs, the proof of existence, although that treatise says that because of individual supports they cannot appropriate, this reveals that because they do not pervasively rely [on the faculties], they cannot appropriate. If it were not so, then "because of individual supports" would lack a matching example. One should say: The six active consciousnesses cannot appropriate; because they do not pervasively rely [on faculties]; like flashes of lightning, etc. Now, taking the reason "not pervasively relying" incurs uncertainty against this: is it like lightning etc., which because it does not pervasively rely, the eye and other six consciousnesses cannot appropriate the physical sense-organs and body; or is it like your accepted nature of the eighth consciousness, which because it does not pervasively rely, these six consciousnesses of mine could pervasively appropriate the physical sense-organs and body? Since the reason does not incur uncertainty, one knows that the eighth also relies on physical sense-faculties.