[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 4.952 # 成唯識論述記 4.952 成唯識論述記 4.952 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.952](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.952) 述曰：謂前所除六處之餘，皆非有境、非定、非主。故前除蘊，除界除處應盡，當知以非有境、定、為主故。何以簡餘先言有境，次有定言？顯文影互，三因不定，皆互說故。何以知然依、所依別？五十五云：心、心所法何故名有所依？答：由一種類託眾所依差別轉故。雖有為法無無依者，然非此中所說依義，唯恒所依為此量故。此中唯一種類託眾所依者，顯心、心所各各一故非如色等。唯心、心所有此所依，非所餘法有所依故。餘法但名有依非所依義，乃至唯恒所依為此量故，即是此中決定之義。若名有所依，心所亦是，體是所依，心所即非。彼論言有依此言是故，此如何等？ > The Commentary states: This means that all that remains outside the six internal bases excluded above do not possess an intentional object, are not determined, and are not sovereign. Therefore, the earlier exclusion of aggregates, elements, and bases should be exhaustive; one should know this is because they do not possess an intentional object, are not determined, and are not sovereign. Why, in excluding the rest, does it first mention possessing an intentional object and then mention being determined? It shows that the phrasing is mutually reflective; the three reasons are not fixed, for each is stated in alternation. How is it known that support (āśraya) and dependence (āśrita) are distinct? Fascicle 55 states: 'Why are mind and mental factors called "having that which they support upon" (sāśraya)?' Answer: 'Because a single category proceeds by relying upon the distinction of multiple supports.' Although among conditioned dharmas there are none without a reliance, this is not the meaning of 'support' explained here, for only a constant support serves as the standard here. Here, 'a single category relying upon multiple supports' shows that mind and mental factors are each singular, unlike matter and so forth. Only mind and mental factors have this support, whereas the remaining dharmas do not possess a support. The remaining dharmas are merely called 'having a reliance' (āśrita) and do not have the meaning of being a support (āśraya), up to: 'only a constant support serves as the standard here,' which is the meaning of 'determined' here. If one speaks of 'having a support,' mental factors also possess it; as for the substance being a support, mental factors are not. That treatise says 'having a support,' whereas this \[treatise\] says it is so. How is this illustrated? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.951](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.951) - [Next: 4.953](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.953) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.4.952) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.144) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.952](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.952) · Pramāṇa