成唯識論演祕 5.5

5.5

Question: Since the treatise itself states that always depending on the mind, etc., is called a mental factor, and the mind does not depend on the mind, how can one object that it should be called a mental factor? Answer: "Depending on the mind" indicates depending on what is not oneself; because it depends on what is not oneself, it receives the name "mental factor". The mind's dependence is also like this—why would it not be a mental factor? The Commentary censured it based on reason; otherwise, the mind is general, while sensation and so forth are specific. The specific and the general do not fit closely, so the objection would not be precise. Now I assist with an objection: sensation and so forth arise depending on the mind, and following their dependence, they are called mental factors; the mind arises depending on mental factors, so it should be called a factor of mental factors; the remaining objections correspond to this. This does not contradict the treatise, nor is there the fault of an unequal match between the specific and general.