成唯識論掌中樞要 1.151

1.151

法執中，問：第七影像攝相歸見，可名有覆；攝影歸質，可名無覆；亦應攝相歸見，名為分別；攝影歸質，得名異熟？答：不離見故，性類可同；非是能緣，不名分別；託質方起，可從無覆；非業果故，不從異熟。問：「非是能緣，不從分別」，有覆應爾；「非是業果，不從異熟」，無覆應然？答：性通多法，二性可從見果義局，不從分別及名異熟。

Regarding attachment to dharmas, question: If the reflected image of the seventh [consciousness] has its form-aspect subsumed into the seeing-aspect, it can be called veiled; if the reflected image is subsumed into the original model, it can be called non-veiled. Should its form-aspect also be subsumed into the seeing-aspect and called discriminative; and its reflected image be subsumed into the original model and called vipāka? Answer: Because it is not separate from the seeing[-aspect], its nature-class can be identical; not being an active cognizer, it is not called discriminative; arising only by leaning on the original model, it may follow [it as] non-veiled; not being a karmic fruit, it does not follow [it as] vipāka. Question: If 'not being an active cognizer, it does not follow [the seeing-aspect as] discriminative,' then the same should apply to veiled; if 'not being a karmic fruit, it does not follow [the model as] vipāka,' then the same should apply to non-veiled? Answer: Natures pervade multiple phenomena, so the two natures can follow [them]; the meaning of seeing and fruit is restricted, so it does not follow [them as] discriminative or being named vipāka.