成唯識論掌中樞要 1.193

1.193

「達無離識所緣境」中稱行相相似，雖第三卷有二和會，然無分別智緣真如。所緣不相似，應言同一。此《唯識》文不盡理。若就《瑜伽》言同一，即無本質心，唯相似故，不可同一。應會二文，以為正理，偏取可皆非，非正中釋。應如理思。或二文說：《瑜伽》約相似同一，此論約境一名相似，同一境轉故，亦不相違。釋「所緣相似」與《瑜伽》「同一所緣」有五釋：一、就彼文；二、就此文；三、彼約本質，此依影像；四、彼此約皆同；五、彼依無為有本質緣，此依有為無本質緣。

In [the passage] "comprehending that there is no cognized object (ālambana) apart from consciousness," where it is said that the mental activities (ākāra) are similar: although Fascicle 3 contains two harmonizations, when non-conceptual wisdom (nirvikalpa-jñāna) takes Suchness (tathatā) as its object, the cognized objects are not merely similar, but should be said to be identical. This passage in the Cheng weishi lun does not exhaust the principle. If, according to the Yogācārabhūmi, it is said to be identical, then for a mind without an archetype (bimba) there is only similarity, so they cannot be identical. One should harmonize the two texts to form the correct principle; taking either side exclusively may well be incorrect, not an interpretation of the middle. One should reflect on this properly. Alternatively, the two texts state: the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of being identical in terms of similarity, while this treatise speaks of being similar in terms of the object being single; because they operate on the identical object, there is no contradiction. Regarding the explanation of "similarity of cognized object" and the Yogācārabhūmi's "identical cognized object," there are five interpretations: 1. based on that text; 2. based on this text; 3. that text is according to the archetype, while this treatise is based on the reflected image; 4. both texts are based on them being entirely identical; 5. that text is based on the unconditioned having an archetypal object, while this treatise is based on the conditioned lacking an archetypal object.