唯識二十論述記 2.196

2.196

Commentary: This directly presents the objection and explains the third line of the verse: 'and the object is already non-existent.' The six consciousnesses—eye and the rest—do not arise simultaneously. When this judgment arises, it must be within the mental consciousness; but it is not direct perception: that which perceives is already non-existent, and the present object that is perceived has also already perished. When the discursive cognition of this very judgment perceives in the present, it cannot reach the present object because the latter has already ceased; therefore, its proof fails. One should formulate an inference: The arising of this judgment is necessarily not direct perception; because in a distracted mental state the object is already non-existent; like perceiving matters of hundreds of thousands of eons in the past in a distracted mental state. For the Mahāsāṃghika and others, since momentariness is likewise held, while the six consciousnesses being simultaneous differs slightly, it is largely the same as this.