成唯識論述記 7.498

7.498

述曰：此第二唯識量。又復一切自識所緣，決定不離我之能緣心及心所，以是所緣法故，如相應法。相應法體所緣性故，有法同前，故此不說。謂一切有、無為但所緣之法定不離識，此中不言即識，以有、無為別故。此中亦有一分相扶極成過，以他心智境等即是心故，此亦不然。今此所成我識之境，定不離我現在識所緣，非謂他心亦即我心，以是法故，即有體法，非是空花，彼無法故，不可為因。又解除彼亦得，相應法者謂心、心所，非言與心相應，但總言相應，故通心也。

The Commentary states: This is the second vijñapti-mātra inference: "Furthermore, all objects of one's own consciousness definitely do not depart from my cognitive citta and caitasikas; because they are objects [of consciousness]; just like associated dharmas." Because the substance of associated dharmas has the nature of an object of consciousness, the pakṣa is the same as before, and therefore is not stated here. This means that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, simply by being objects of consciousness, definitely do not depart from consciousness; here it is not said that they "are consciousness itself," because conditioned and unconditioned [dharmas] differ. Here too, one might raise the flaw of partial mutual agreement on what is already established (siddhasādhana), since the object of another's cognition of other minds is consciousness itself; but this is also not so. What is now established is that the objects of my consciousness definitely do not depart from the objects of my present consciousness; it does not mean that another's mind is also my mind. Because it is a "dharma," it is an existent dharma, not a sky-flower, which, being a non-existent dharma, cannot serve as a reason. Furthermore, it is also acceptable to explain it by removing that [case]. "Associated dharmas" refers to citta and caitasika; it does not say "associated with citta," but merely speaks generally of "associated," and thus it applies to citta as well.