成唯識論述記 4.958

4.958

述曰：但說心所心為所依，依於心故，心為所主。不說心所為心所依，以彼心所體非主故，即第三義。此是依外別簡之法，故重言之。然諸識相望有不得者，此第一義，略而不論，下出依中正簡之故。問：如前第三本識五數，解五平等義中。言而時依同所緣事等，即以所依說為依等。如《瑜伽》第一，五識所依有三：一、種子依，乃至第三等無間依。前此論言諸心、心所皆有所依，然所依有三，即以種子、等無間依皆名所依，何故此中定以六內處為所依，餘但是依？

The Commentary states: They only state that mental factors take the mind as their support, because they rely on the mind, and the mind is what acts as sovereign. They do not state that mental factors are the support for the mind, because the substance of those mental factors is not sovereign; this is the third criterion. This is a dharma specially excluded beyond reliance, hence it is restated. However, among the various consciousnesses in relation to each other, there are those that cannot [be supports]; this is the first criterion, which is briefly omitted without discussion here, because it will be properly excluded below when presenting supports. Question: As in the earlier third [fascicle], regarding the five mental factors of the fundamental consciousness, in explaining the meaning of the five equalities, it says: 'Yet their temporal support and cognitive object are identical,' thus referring to the support as a reliance, and so forth. As in Fascicle 1 of the Yogācārabhūmi, the supports of the five consciousnesses are three: first, the seed support, up to the third, the immediately preceding support. Earlier in this treatise it was stated that all minds and mental factors have supports, yet the supports are of three kinds, taking seeds and the immediately preceding support as supports. Why here is it determined that only the six internal bases are supports, while the rest are merely reliances?