成唯識論述記 5.142

5.142

[The Commentary states:] This is Sthiramati's explanation, not the previous master's. Why? The treatises state that it takes that ālayavijñāna as cognitive object, which is subsumed under the aggregate of consciousness. If one permits it to take that objective realm as cognitive object, it would encompass the aggregate of matter; yet this aggregate of matter is not subsumed under the aggregate of consciousness; how then can one say it takes consciousness as cognitive object and yet encompasses matter? If matter were the aggregate of consciousness, the statement 'takes consciousness as cognitive object' would permit taking matter as cognitive object; but since matter is not the aggregate of consciousness, the statement 'takes consciousness as cognitive object' does not subsume matter.