成唯識論演祕 2.7

2.7

詳曰：此未必然，何意心所獨名相近？若似名近，何不兼心？近王名近，境相更近，何乃先破？或據一邊義必通也，然成繁碎。

I examine [this and suggest]: This is not necessarily so. Why should mental factors alone be termed 'close'? If being similar is called 'close,' why not also include mind? If being close to the king is called 'close,' the intentional object is even closer; why then refute it first? Or, relying on one perspective, the principle certainly holds, but it becomes overly fragmented.