成唯識論述記 5.85

5.85

述曰：受、想等法異類並生，而互相應不相違背，和合似一故。《顯揚論》五十五等云：心、心所和合，非不和合，不可離別，施設殊異，定俱生滅，事業必同，俱取此境。故隨一心開導之時，相應心所亦能開導，具此五義故，故得心與心所，心所與心，等作無間緣。言五義者：一、相應，即所依、時、事、處四義等同故；二、和合似一；三、俱生滅；四、事業同，三性必等；五、開導同。諸識不然，各互相望不具此五，不應例心所令同異識。自下第二，心所成依難。問：心、心所法雖異類相望互作緣，緣義既無差，為依亦應等？

The Commentary states: Sensation, ideation (saṃjñā), and other dharmas arise side by side as different categories, yet they are associated with each other and do not conflict, harmonizing as if they were one. The Prakaraṇāryavācā, fascicle fifty-five and elsewhere, states: 'Mind and mental factors are harmonious, not unharmonious; they cannot be separated and designated as distinct; they definitively arise and cease together; their operations are necessarily identical; and together they apprehend this object.' Therefore, whenever a single mind opens and guides, its associated mental factors can also open and guide. Because they possess these five meanings, mind and mental factors, and mental factors and mind, can mutually serve as equal-and-immediate conditions. Regarding the five meanings: 1. association, meaning that basis, time, entity, and place are identical in these four respects; 2. harmonizing as if one; 3. arising and ceasing together; 4. identical operations, being necessarily equal in the three natures; 5. identical opening and guiding. The various consciousnesses are not like this: viewed with respect to each other, they lack these five; one should not make an analogy with mental factors to make them equivalent to different consciousnesses. Below is the second: the objection regarding mental factors becoming a basis. Question: Although mind and mental factors of different categories mutually act as conditions, since the meaning of condition has no difference, should their being a basis not also be equal?