成唯識論演祕 4.338

4.338

詳曰：言等無間，何理不遮自類後心同時心所？豈復有許後心為前及俱時所無間緣耶？又第四義簡後心等，其第三而簡何法？故三義勝。又云此者此前滅心者，意即可通，望文不順，文中不言前滅心故。云何此此？故今應云：此於後心至名開導依者，辨其名義，此言此前具三義法。此但屬心下，出體遮餘。

Examination says: Regarding "equal-immediate", what reason is there for it not to exclude the subsequent mind of the same class and simultaneous mental factors? Could anyone further accept that a subsequent mind serves as an immediate condition for a preceding one or for simultaneous factors? Furthermore, if the fourth meaning excludes subsequent minds and the like, what dharma does the third exclude? Therefore, three meanings are superior. Furthermore, to say that "this" means "this preceding ceased mind", while the sense may be tenable, does not align with the text, because the text does not speak of the "preceding ceased mind". How could it be "this" and "this"? Therefore, one should now say: From "This [serves] for the subsequent mind..." up to "is called an opening-and-guiding condition" explains its name and meaning; the word "this" refers to the preceding dharma endowed with three meanings. Below "This belongs only to citta...", it specifies the essence and excludes the rest.