成唯識論述記 5.839

5.839

述曰：自下別解有二：初解「心所」二字；後解「遍行」等義。解心所中復三：初解心所之義；次解行相；後總結之。此即初也。略以三義解心所總名：一、恒依心起。心若無，心所不生，要心為依方得生故。若爾，心望遍行；應名心所。二、與心相應。彼五說與心相應故，心不與心相應故。又時、依、緣、事，四義具故，說名相應；由此，色等亦非心所。既爾，心具五義，與五相應，應名心所。三、繫屬於心，以心為主，所繫屬之心有自在，非所以是義，故繫屬於心。有此三義，故名心所。又初義顯遍行，恒依心故。第二，顯餘一切心所非恒依心，心相應故。第三，正解心所之義。又解心王不名為所，不屬心故。由此三義，簡別心、色等，不得名心所，又解第一句，顯一切心所得名心所；第二句，簡一切色等不名心所；第三句，顯心所得名為所，以繫屬他，以非主故，心不名所。又初句簡無為，不依心起故；第二句簡色，不相應；第三句，正解心所得名所以。

The Commentary states: Below, the individual explanation has two parts: first, it explains the two characters 'caitasika'; second, it explains the meanings of 'sarvatraga' (omnipresent) and so forth. Within the explanation of caitasika, there are again three parts: first, explaining the meaning of caitasika; next, explaining the ākāra (modes of activity); finally, a general conclusion. This is the first part. It briefly uses three meanings to explain the general name 'caitasika': First, 'constantly arising dependent on citta.' If citta is absent, caitasikas do not arise; because they must rely on citta as their basis in order to be able to arise. If that is so, then with respect to the omnipresent factors, citta itself should be called a caitasika. Second, 'being associated with citta.' Because those five are said to be associated with citta, and citta is not associated with citta. Furthermore, because the four meanings—time, basis, object-support, and substantive entity—are complete, they are called 'associated'; due to this, matter (rūpa) and so forth are also not caitasikas. If that is so, since citta is complete with the five meanings and is associated with the five, it should be called a caitasika. Third, 'being subordinate to citta.' Taking citta as primary, they are subordinated to it; citta possesses mastery, but they do not. Because of this meaning, they are subordinate to citta. Possessing these three meanings, they are therefore called caitasika. Furthermore, the first meaning reveals the omnipresent factors, because they constantly rely on citta. The second reveals that all the other caitasikas do not constantly rely on citta, because they are associated with citta. The third directly explains the meaning of 'caitasika' (belonging to citta). It also explains why the cittarāja is not called 'belonging to' [citta], because it is not subordinate to citta. Due to these three meanings, citta, rūpa, etc., are excluded and cannot be called caitasikas. Another explanation: the first sentence reveals how all caitasikas obtain the name 'caitasika'; the second sentence excludes all rūpa and so forth from being called caitasikas; the third sentence reveals how caitasikas obtain the name 'belonging to' (所), because they are subordinate to another and not primary, whereas citta is not called 'belonging to.' Yet another explanation: the first sentence excludes unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta), because they do not arise dependent on citta; the second sentence excludes rūpa, because it is not associated; the third sentence directly explains the reason why caitasikas obtain their name.