成唯識論述記 10.675

10.675

述曰：第二師說：識與相、見分等，皆從緣生因緣法故。此二與識，虛實皆同。雖有緣去、來等，相是依他故，與識不多別。又，此師意，但有相分，與識一種，是實，不遮緣過、未，但得假法。此是正義。前師相、見即識種生，此師相分與識別種，見分與識同種生故。若爾，應言諸法唯境，何言唯識？

The Commentary states: The second master says: Consciousness, the nimittabhāga, the darśanabhāga, and so forth are all phenomena arising from conditions, [produced by] cause and condition. In their unreality or reality, these two are both identical with consciousness. Although there are [cognitions] that take the past, the future, and so on as their object, their nimitta is paratantra; hence it does not differ much from consciousness. Moreover, this master's intention is that only a nimittabhāga that shares the same single [real] nature as consciousness is real, but this does not preclude that when taking the past and future as object, one obtains only an unreal phenomenon. This is the correct teaching. For the former master, both nimitta and darśana arise from the seed of consciousness itself, whereas for this master, the nimittabhāga and consciousness arise from separate seeds, and only the darśanabhāga arises from the same seed as consciousness. If that is so, should one say that all phenomena are 'object-only' (viṣaya-mātra)? Why say 'consciousness-only' (vijñapti-mātra)?