成唯識論演祕 6.259

6.259

Evaluation: That the mind bears the aspect of the object is stated in terms of an indirect sense, which the Commentary does not disallow. Thus the earlier Commentary says: 'To what does the condition give rise? What bears its own aspect?' This refers to mind and mental factors, making clear that the mind bears the object. If one says that the Commentary speaks only based on the direct objective condition, there is no textual basis in the Commentary; moreover, the outline of the Commentary states 'First, explaining the substantial nature'—could it be that in the initial section the author of the Commentary did not allow it to apply commonly to both distant and direct conditions? From this we know that the author of the Commentary accepted that the mind bears the aspect of the object. Now, when it is said that the reflection bears the mūla-dharmin, 'bearing' has the meaning of carrying closely and adhering directly. According to this meaning, it is said that 'the nimitta bears the mūla-dharmin'; the darśana is separated from the mūla-dharmin by the nimitta and is distant, hence it is not spoken of in this way. Because of this, the perspectives before and after differ, and there is no error in principle. Now, to explain it in another way: 'bearing' (dài) has two meanings: First, bearing means carrying closely and adhering directly; the apprehending factor adheres directly to the apprehended object without separation, which is called 'carrying closely', just as the world speaks of 'the body carrying a sword'. Second, bearing means resembling; the apprehending factor possesses an aspect resembling the mūla-dharmin, the aspect being the nimitta-bhāga, and when mind and mūla-dharmin are separate, this is called 'bearing resemblance', just as the world speaks of 'the face bearing fire [a flushed complexion]'. Although the distance of the object relative to the mind differs, the mind in relation to them can generally be said to 'bear' them, and in corresponding order they are called the two objective conditions, because the mind arises depending on the two objects, direct and distant. Therefore, in the general statement of the treatise, it says 'bears its own aspect', and for the mind or its associates it does not exclude any aspect; only in the specific [explanation] does it state that the apprehending and apprehended conditions are unseparated or separated. Thus, one does not need to rely on speaking indirectly to call it 'bearing'; let the wise reflect on this.