成唯識論演祕 5.3

5.3

有義：難云：受等依心起受等，名心所；心依受等生，應名受等所。又，受等四義具受等，名心所；心亦四義具，應名受等所。如《疏》以彼二、三義簡。然《疏》中說應名心所，此即不然，既以心王望受等說，如何仍說名作心所？

One explanation objects: Sensation and so forth arise in dependence on the mind, and sensation and so forth are called mental factors (caitasika); the mind arises in dependence on sensation and so forth, so it should be called a "factor of sensation, and so forth." Moreover, sensation and so forth possess the four meanings, so sensation and so forth are called mental factors; the mind also possesses the four meanings, so it should be called a "factor of sensation, and so forth." As the Commentary excludes them by means of those two or three meanings, yet the Commentary states that [the mind] should be called a mental factor—this is not correct: since it is spoken of by setting the primary mind against sensation and so forth, how could it still be said to be called a "mental factor"?