成唯識論演祕 4.155

4.155

答：後種既託前種而起，何得云無？故知誤也。有義彈云：非但此論說心、心所名有所依，彼《瑜伽論》亦說眼等識有三種所依。既彼此論皆說心等名有所依，不說種子能有所依，名種子依有何過失？此中不欲釋因緣故，故下廣文言種依也。如增上緣依非攝一切增上緣盡，此亦應爾，不攝一切因緣因緣盡也。

Answer: Since a subsequent seed arises depending on an antecedent seed, how could one say it lacks it? Therefore it is known to be an error. One opinion criticizes this, saying: Not only does this Treatise state that citta and caitasika dharmas are called 'having a basis', but that Yogācārabhūmi also states that the eye and other consciousnesses have three kinds of bases. Since both treatises state that citta and so on are called 'having a basis', and do not state that seeds can have a basis, what fault is there in calling it 'seed basis'? Because it is not intended here to explain cause-as-condition, the extensive text below speaks of seed basis. Just as the basis of the predominant condition does not completely subsume all predominant conditions, here too it should be like this: it does not completely subsume all causes-as-conditions.