成唯識論述記 3.158

3.158

述曰：謂於所緣相分之上有了別有，即行相故，是識見分，非是餘分。然行相有二：一者、見分，如此文說，即一切識等皆有此行相，於所緣上定有；二者、影像相分名為行相，其一切識或有或無，所緣不定故，如此論下所緣緣中，出二所緣緣體；又《瑜伽》等說同一所緣是也。今此且約諸識定有者說，或與小乘別體者說以影像相為行相者，小乘同故，然唯初解，無第二者。第八俱時五心所法，如何可說同一所緣，不同一行相？故須二解。以影像相為行相者，出《集量》文。

The Commentary states: This means that upon the cognized nimittabhāga there is the function of discerning, which is the ākāra, and is the darśanabhāga of consciousness, not any other division. However, ākāra is of two kinds: First, the darśanabhāga, as explained in this text, which means that all consciousnesses and the like possess this ākāra, and it definitely exists with respect to the cognized object. Second, the mental image nimittabhāga is called the ākāra; across all consciousnesses it is sometimes present and sometimes absent, because what is cognized is not fixed; just as below in this treatise under the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), the substance of the two objective conditions is presented; and furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth say that they 'share the same cognized object', which refers to this. Here it is stated for now with respect to what definitely exists in all consciousnesses, or stated as having a different substance from the Hīnayāna; for regarding the mental image as the ākāra is shared with the Hīnayāna, but [here] there is only the first interpretation and not the second. How could the five caitasikas concurrent with the eighth consciousness be said to share the same cognized object but not share the same ākāra? Therefore, both explanations are necessary. Taking the mental image as the ākāra comes from the text of the Pramāṇa-samuccaya.