成唯識論述記 9.89

9.89

The Commentary states: Although what is grasped is the cognitive sphere of the parikalpita citta, it is not an objective condition (ālambana-pratyaya); therefore, it is not that which is conceptualized. That which is conceptualized is based on existing dharmas; the meaning of 'cognitive sphere' is broader and non-existent dharmas are also called cognitive spheres, while 'objective condition' is narrower and non-existent dharmas are not such. Therefore, only the paratantra is that which is conceptualized. Fascicle 74 says: 'Due to what is there conceptualization? Due to the paratantra-svabhāva.' This is precisely it. Why does Fascicle 74 also state: the parikalpita-svabhāva is not an object of ordinary or noble jñāna, because it lacks marks, saying 'it is the cognitive sphere of neither'? That which resembles a nimittabhāga is not a non-existent dharma. A non-existent dharma is not an objective condition; an objective condition must be an existing dharma. That nature may be called an 'object of cognition', which is why it is called a 'cognitive sphere' and 'not a condition'; because it lacks an entity, it is not that it is not spoken of as a non-object in contrast to the citta. Therefore this nature is said to be that which should be known. If it were not in contrast to the citta, how could one cause it to be known? Furthermore, it says: 'Because parikalpita is exclusively an object of the ordinary.' This concludes broadly explaining the second line of the verse above. Does a Buddha know non-existence or not? If He knows it, how does it constitute an object? If He does not know it, how can He be called all-knowing? This meaning should be contemplated, as explained in Fascicle 7 of the Vijñapti[-mātratā].