成唯識論述記 4.952

4.952

The Commentary states: This means that all that remains outside the six internal bases excluded above do not possess an intentional object, are not determined, and are not sovereign. Therefore, the earlier exclusion of aggregates, elements, and bases should be exhaustive; one should know this is because they do not possess an intentional object, are not determined, and are not sovereign. Why, in excluding the rest, does it first mention possessing an intentional object and then mention being determined? It shows that the phrasing is mutually reflective; the three reasons are not fixed, for each is stated in alternation. How is it known that support (āśraya) and dependence (āśrita) are distinct? Fascicle 55 states: 'Why are mind and mental factors called "having that which they support upon" (sāśraya)?' Answer: 'Because a single category proceeds by relying upon the distinction of multiple supports.' Although among conditioned dharmas there are none without a reliance, this is not the meaning of 'support' explained here, for only a constant support serves as the standard here. Here, 'a single category relying upon multiple supports' shows that mind and mental factors are each singular, unlike matter and so forth. Only mind and mental factors have this support, whereas the remaining dharmas do not possess a support. The remaining dharmas are merely called 'having a reliance' (āśrita) and do not have the meaning of being a support (āśraya), up to: 'only a constant support serves as the standard here,' which is the meaning of 'determined' here. If one speaks of 'having a support,' mental factors also possess it; as for the substance being a support, mental factors are not. That treatise says 'having a support,' whereas this [treatise] says it is so. How is this illustrated?