成唯識論演祕 4.158

4.158

此問答意，種、現俱時非增上緣，置增上簡。同時心所既是增上，更無別簡應得名為增上緣依。夫俱有依要有主義，所既非主，不簡無失。有義彈云：此亦不然，由俱有名有前濫故說增上言者，根種望現業種子等及扶根塵等應是此依。既同有濫，如何偏責？故於尊教不應顯失。

The intention of this question and answer is: since seeds and actual states are simultaneous and not the predominant condition, the qualification of 'predominant' is introduced to exclude them. Since simultaneous mental factors are indeed predominant [conditions], and there is no further qualification to exclude them, they ought to be termed 'bases that are predominant conditions'. Generally, a co-existent basis must possess the sense of mastery; since mental factors are not masters, there is no error in not excluding them. Another opinion criticizes this, saying: 'This too is incorrect. If the word "predominant" was stated because the name "co-existent" incurs the former overextension, then the root-seeds [as viewed] in relation to actual states, karma-seeds, and the matter supporting the sense-organs ought to be such bases. Since they equally incur the overextension, why single out one for blame? Therefore, one should not point out faults in the Venerable Teaching.'