成唯識論掌中樞要 2.244

2.244

〈七十三〉解無相取有數十番解，應勘敘之。問：若許無分別智有見無相，如自證分，何不即緣自證？若以內、外取，故不得者，既爾，應成相分所攝。即自體故，不成相分者，即自體故，應緣自證，若以相、性別故，不得緣者，相、性別故，應相分緣。彼無相故，不可為例。又應無分別，故說非能取，實有見分。亦應無差別，故名為無相，實有相分。相，謂相狀，狀貌。無此狀貌體相之法，非無境體，以無分別差別相故，名無相分。見分之言通非分別。

Chapter 73 explains "cognising without nimitta" in several dozen ways; these should be collated and set out. Question: If non-discriminative wisdom is admitted to have a darśana[-bhāga] without a nimitta[-bhāga], just as the svasaṃvitti-bhāga does, why does it not simply cognise the svasaṃvitti? If [one argues that] it cannot because it grasps internal and external [differently], then in that case it ought to be subsumed under the nimitta-bhāga. If [one argues that] because it is the self-substance itself, it does not become a nimitta-bhāga, then because it is the self-substance itself, it ought to cognise the svasaṃvitti. If [one argues that] because nimitta and nature (svabhāva) are different, it cannot cognise it, then because nimitta and nature are different, it ought to cognise via a nimitta-bhāga. Because that [wisdom] has no nimitta, it cannot serve as an analogous case. Furthermore, it should be said that because there is no discrimination, it is not a grāhaka (active grasper), yet it truly has a darśana-bhāga. Likewise, because there is no distinction, it is called "without nimitta", yet it truly has a nimitta-bhāga. "Nimitta" refers to appearance and form. A phenomenon that lacks this appearance, form, entity, or nimitta is not without an objective entity; because it is without differentiated, distinct characteristics, it is called "lacking a nimitta-bhāga". The term "darśana-bhāga" commonly applies even to that which is not discriminative.