成唯識論述記 8.201

8.201

述曰：第四子門。就如一眼識中，俱時心、心所，一一別互相望，雖是同聚，而是別體，展轉相望唯有增上緣，見分、相分一切皆然，不相緣故。然此心、心所不相緣，相分所杖本質同。若見分、相分不相緣故，非如大眾部緣俱生心、心法故。若許緣者不同一所緣過，受不與心同一緣故，大乘見分不許自緣，亦有此妨。然極相近不緣俱法，說自證分既得自緣，即無前過，但有後失。若爾，如何名同一所緣？謂所杖質同名同一，非多見分共一親相分名為同也。若爾，且如第八心王，不能緣心所之相，即無本質，如何名為同一所緣？同一所緣總有二義：一、所杖質同名為同一，如五識等俱心所法，必同本識所變質生故。二、相似名同一，即第八俱心、心所法，及第六識緣過、未等，雖或無本質不託他變，各各自變相似名同一，不要心王緣心所之境生名為同一也。此第一義。

The Commentary states: The fourth subsidiary topic: Take, for example, within a single eye-consciousness, the simultaneous citta and caitasikas viewed individually in relation to each other: although they belong to the same cluster, they are distinct substances; mutually viewed, they have only the predominant condition. This is entirely the case for both darśanabhāga and nimittabhāga, because they do not cognize each other. However, while these citta and caitasikas do not cognize each other, the underlying archetype relied upon by their nimittabhāgas is identical. If the darśanabhāga and nimittabhāga do not cognize each other, it is not like the Mahāsāṃghika view where simultaneously arising citta and caitta dharmas cognize each other. If one allowed them to cognize each other, there would be the fault of not sharing the same cognitive object (samānālambana), because vedanā would not share the identical cognitive object with citta; since the Mahāyāna darśanabhāga does not allow self-cognition, this difficulty would also arise. However, being extremely close, they do not cognize simultaneously arising dharmas; stating that the svasaṃvittibhāga can cognize itself avoids the former fault and incurs only the latter flaw. If so, how are they called 'sharing the same cognitive object'? That which relies on the same archetype is called identical; it does not mean that multiple darśanabhāgas share a single immediate nimittabhāga. If so, taking the eighth cittarāja as an example, it cannot cognize the forms of the caitasikas and thus has no underlying archetype; how could it be said to share the same cognitive object? 'Sharing the same cognitive object' has two meanings in total: First, having the identical archetype relied upon is called identical, just as the caitasika dharmas simultaneous with the five consciousnesses necessarily arise by sharing the archetype transformed by the root consciousness. Second, being similar is called identical: that is, the citta and caitasika dharmas simultaneous with the eighth, as well as the sixth consciousness cognizing the past, future, and so forth, although they may lack an underlying archetype and do not rely on another's transformation, each transforms its own similar [mark], which is called identical; it does not require that the cittarāja arise by cognizing the object of the caitasikas to be called identical. This is the first explanation.