成唯識論述記 6.229

6.229

The Commentary states: The third is the external objection, stating: this still has not clarified that statement "purification of the mind." If the substance of purification is itself mind, being a karmadhāraya compound, faith should not be a mental factor, because purification would itself be the mind. If the substance of purification is not itself mind, but makes the mind pure—"the purification of the mind"—it relies on a tatpuruṣa compound in the instrumental case (third case inflection). How does it differ from shame (hrī) and the like? For they also make the mind pure. If it means pure phenomena accompanying the mind, being a neighboring-attributive compound (upamānopameya / samīpatā compound), it would be because purification accompanies the mind. The objection regarding making [the mind] pure applies equally, and it would likewise not differ from shame and the like.