成唯識論述記 5.642

5.642

述曰：彼經部救，或薩婆多云：彼過去意於現在時曾有思量，故過去名意者；難云：爾時名識，寧說為意？了別名識，現在名識，汝義定然，如何過去法曾思量名意？設彼似現意故名意，應似現了別故名識。識不得名，意如何似可名思量？

The Commentary states: The Sautrāntika defends, or the Sarvāstivādin says: "That past manas once had ratiocination at the present time; therefore, in the past it is called manas." We challenge them: At that time it was called consciousness (vijñāna); how could it be called manas? Cognition (vijñapti) is called consciousness, and the present is called consciousness—this is certainly your tenet. How could a past dharma that once ratiocinated be called manas? If it is called manas because it resembles the present manas, it should be called consciousness because it resembles present cognition. If it does not obtain the name 'consciousness', how could it resemble manas so as to be called 'ratiocination'?