成唯識論述記 8.219

8.219

述曰：若通佛說，非見分等為相分所緣緣，一切相分是親所變名為相分，相分必無能緣用故，如化心等亦爾，化心不緣故，故此第三、四亦非相所緣，見分攝故。文中唯有見分，非相分境也。不除同聚心、心所相緣，以得緣故，即顯自證分亦見所緣，現作相分緣故，如無分別智唯是現量，無外境故，不緣，不同後得智，後得智見分返緣自證，作影像緣，仍是相分，不爾，即與證自證無別，何須四分？由是一切心皆具四分。今緣相應法見分，緣自證分亦能緣證自證分，證自證分亦能緣見分、相分者，唯在佛位餘者不能，此中但遮見分非相所緣，義遮第三、四分亦非相所緣，意顯餘三分互緣一切法，名遍緣故。雖作此解，三分何別？各相似故。如前所得者，親得；餘新所得，影說，故成差別。又解然今但遮相為能緣，及遮見分不緣自證，非顯餘二得緣一切，此不及前解。

The Commentary states: If speaking comprehensively of the Buddha: the vision part and so forth do not serve as the objective condition for a mark part, because all mark parts are that which is directly transformed and are called 'mark parts,' and mark parts necessarily lack the function of taking objects. The mind of transformation (nirmāṇa-citta) and so forth are also like this: because the mind of transformation does not take objects, therefore the third and fourth [parts] are also not objects of the mark [part], being subsumed under the vision part. In the text there is only the vision part; it is not an object of the mark part. It does not exclude citta and caitasikas of the same cluster taking each other as object, because they can take [each other] as object, which reveals that the self-witnessing part is also an object of the vision [part], because it manifests as an object and is apprehended. For example, non-discriminative wisdom (nirvikalpa-jñāna) is purely direct perception (pratyakṣa): because there is no external object, it does not take [external objects], unlike subsequent wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna). The vision part of subsequent wisdom reflects back to take its self-witnessing [part] as object, constructing an image to apprehend it, which is still a mark part; otherwise, it would not differ from the witness of the self-witnessing [part] (saṃvitti-svasaṃvittibhāga)—why would four parts be needed? It is because of this that all minds possess the four parts. Now, taking the vision part of an associated dharma as object, taking the self-witnessing part as object, and also being able to take the witness of the self-witnessing part as object; and the witness of the self-witnessing part also being able to take the vision part and mark part as object—this occurs only in the Buddha stage, and the others cannot do so. Here it merely excludes the vision part from being an object of the mark [part], and by implication excludes the third and fourth parts from also being objects of the mark [part], intending to show that the remaining three parts mutually take all dharmas as object, which is called 'universally taking as object.' Although this explanation is made, how do the three parts differ? Because each resembles the others. That which was obtained as before is directly obtained; that which is newly obtained is spoken of as an image; thus there is a distinction. Another explanation says: now it merely excludes the mark [part] from being able to take objects, and excludes the vision part from taking the self-witnessing [part] as object, not indicating that the other two can take everything as object. This is inferior to the previous explanation.