成唯識論了義燈 1.107

1.107

《論》：及了別境識，《要集》敘。有說下一識字，通三能變。有云：前云彼依識所變，三變通名，此云識者，唯屬第三了別能變，以心、意、識，名體別故。（《要集》但敘，而不決斷。）今謂釋非。所以者何？前標我法依識所變，次辨能變，識體一多，本欲釋前，不擬別解心、意、識號。故下釋云：此三皆名能變識故。又心、意、識、了，名之通故，隨增立名，餘處說別。此處據通識之名，體不得云別。

The Treatise [states]: 'And the consciousness that discerns objects.' The Yaoji relates: Some say that the latter word 'consciousness' applies generally to the three transformations. Others say: Previously it said 'they depend on what is transformed by consciousness,' which is the general name for the three transformations; here, saying 'consciousness' belongs solely to the third transformation, which is discerning, because the names and substantial entities of mind (citta), thought (manas), and consciousness (vijñāna) are distinct. (The Yaoji merely relates this without deciding.) Now I say this explanation is incorrect. Why is that? Previously it indicated that self and phenomena are transformed based on consciousness; next it distinguishes the transformers, whether the substantial entity of consciousness is one or many, fundamentally intending to explain what came before, not intending to explain separately the titles of citta, manas, and vijñāna. Hence below it explains: 'Because all three are named transformative consciousnesses.' Furthermore, citta, manas, vijñāna, and discernment are names shared in common; names are established according to what is predominant, and in other places they are said to be distinct. Here it relies on the general name of consciousness, and its substantial entity cannot be said to be distinct.