成唯識論述記 5.157

5.157

述曰：護法菩薩總非，前說皆不應理，非前三師。若緣種者，第七末那既緣識蘊，色等種子非識蘊故。若彼救言「識蘊攝」者，難云：能生色蘊種是種，非色攝；能生識蘊種是種，非識收。若言：識體能生故，生識之種非色蘊，色蘊不能生；生色之種是識蘊。難云：識種非餘蘊，望識可因緣，色種非色蘊，望色非因緣，因緣之種可生識，非因之種不生色。

[The Commentary states:] Bodhisattva Dharmapāla refutes all of them: none of the previous explanations is reasonable, refuting the previous three masters. If it takes seeds as cognitive objects, since the seventh manas takes the aggregate of consciousness as cognitive object, seeds of matter and the like are not the aggregate of consciousness. If they rescue this by saying 'they are subsumed under the aggregate of consciousness', the objection is: seeds capable of producing the aggregate of matter are seeds, not subsumed under matter; seeds capable of producing the aggregate of consciousness are seeds, not subsumed under consciousness. If one says: because the substance of consciousness is capable of producing, seeds producing consciousness are not the aggregate of matter, and the aggregate of matter cannot produce; seeds producing matter are the aggregate of consciousness. The objection is: seeds of consciousness are not the other aggregates, and relative to consciousness they may be causal conditions (hetupratyaya); seeds of matter are not the aggregate of matter, and relative to matter they would not be causal conditions; seeds as causal conditions could produce consciousness, but seeds that are not causes would not produce matter.