成唯識論了義燈 6.5

6.5

釋他心智名唯識中。西明云：安惠三釋，護法二釋。安惠無違，護法釋中第二云：一切所緣，不離能緣，故名唯識。通一切位者，言中有監。云一切所緣不分親、疎。疎所緣緣，監親所緣，總云不離能緣故。若疎所緣緣，亦不離能緣心，何須云緣他心智？不親緣他心，故非離識取，設親緣他心，亦不離自心故，又前如何言，應不親緣離自之色等，以彼所緣無離自故。正解應云：一切親所緣，不離能緣，故名唯識。

In explaining why the knowledge of others' minds is called vijñapti-mātra: Ximing states that Sthiramati gives three explanations and Dharmapāla gives two explanations. Sthiramati has no contradiction. In Dharmapāla's explanations, the second says: 'All grasped objects are not separate from that which grasps them; hence it is called vijñapti-mātra.' In applying this generally to all states, there is an overextension in his statement. In saying 'all grasped objects', he does not distinguish between direct and indirect [objects]. The indirect objective condition (dūra-ālambanapratyaya) overextends to the direct grasped object, universally saying that it is not separate from that which grasps it. If the indirect objective condition were also not separate from the grasping mind, why would one need to say of the knowledge of others' minds: 'It does not directly condition another's mind; therefore it is not a grasping separate from consciousness'? For even if it directly conditioned another's mind, it would still not be separate from one's own mind! Moreover, why was it stated earlier: 'It should not directly condition form and the like that are separate from oneself, because that grasped object is not separate from oneself'? The correct explanation should state: 'All direct grasped objects are not separate from that which grasps them; hence it is called vijñapti-mātra.'