成唯識論述記 2.72

2.72

That is, 'the combination with respect to the five consciousnesses' is the subject (dharmin), and 'is not a condition' is the predicate (dharma); 'because its entity is truly non-existent'; 'just like a second moon' is merely by conceptually conceding that the combination is granted to be an object. In the text it says: Even if it is not the case that a second moon is also accepted as an object [of the five], here it merely excludes its having the meaning of a condition, without saying that it is an object of the five. Furthermore, concerning the second moon, there are briefly two explanations according to Master Gopa: One explanation says it is apprehended solely by mental consciousness; its being used here as an example for the five consciousnesses has no fault because of the meaning of not being a condition and so forth, and since the five consciousnesses are subsumed under the subject, the homogeneous example lacks it, so there is no fault of lacking the probandum. Also, by conceptually reducing the text, one must remove the word 'five' from the subject, stating directly: 'The combination, with respect to consciousness, granted it is an object, is not a condition' as the thesis, since it is an object of the mental [consciousness]. Or, removing the words 'granted it is an object', merely stating: 'The combination, with respect to consciousness, is not a condition' as the thesis is also acceptable. The second explanation says: The aspects of a second moon, sky-flowers, and so forth are indeed objects of visual consciousness and so forth; grasping them as real and so forth only then belongs to mental consciousness. If one relies on this meaning, visible forms like sky-flowers would lack an underlying substance (maula-dravya) and would not be the nature of phenomena (dharmatā) either; hence the former explanation is superior, and Dharmapāla agrees with the former. Furthermore, 'object' means the objective sphere, established whether existent or non-existent; since that text is correct, it does not need deletion or addition. The Sautrāntika master also does not say that the five consciousnesses cognize a second moon; hence in the text of the treatise, the thesis, reason, and example should be understood according to the syllogism. Now, not accepting that it is truly an object, it says 'granted'. If the five consciousnesses cognize nominal phenomena like length, there would be the fault of inconclusiveness; now it is explained by saying that we only take the five consciousnesses as strictly cognizing real [phenomena], so there is no contradiction. However, roughness and so forth among the tangible sphere are precisely the differentiated states of the four great elements and are called nominal, apprehended by the body faculty; they are not like the aggregation of nominals subsumed under length and so forth, and are not apprehended by visual consciousness and so forth. They are spoken of as the visible sphere because clear grasping takes the eye as its gateway. If it is said that the five consciousnesses also cognize nominals, this is within consciousness, unlike other schools; just as cognizing the life-faculty and so forth is also an ālambana-pratyaya, separately transforming into an aspect because it is subsumed under the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva). Or it cognizes both real and [nominal]; your combination has no phenomenon outside consciousness, and cannot be used as a parallel, as in the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā.