成唯識論了義燈 3.40

3.40

《疏》云：有漏一識因，無漏二識果，無漏三智。或說八識者，七地已前有漏變熏，唯第六識。故一識因，在無漏位第七，創緣虛空，非擇滅，未有漏熏，但由第六。故二識果、無漏三智，或除成事，不說緣理。或通八識，智遍緣故。然識變者，獨影唯從見，無別種生。西明即許識變無為，別熏成種，今謂不爾。若許成種，且有漏心緣虛空等。許別成種，即他界緣、無漏緣應皆成種。若許成種，後應生現，亦可為質。何得說云但緣名境？若云雖生他界及無漏質，非真實故，說緣名境。若爾應假，假法如無非因緣故。若許彼緣不別生種，變無為等，例亦應然。

The Commentary states: "Defiled [unconditioned] has one consciousness as cause; undefiled [unconditioned] has two consciousnesses as effect; undefiled [unconditioned] has three cognitions; or it is said to have eight consciousnesses." Before the seventh ground, defiled transformation and perfuming belong exclusively to the sixth consciousness; therefore, it has "one consciousness as cause." At the undefiled stage, the seventh [consciousness] first takes space and non-deliberative cessation as objects; having not yet been perfumed by defilement, this is due solely to the sixth [consciousness]. Therefore, it is the "effect of two consciousnesses." The "three undefiled cognitions" either exclude the cognition that accomplishes activities (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna) because it is not said to cognize principle (tattva); or it applies to all eight consciousnesses, because cognition cognizes universally. However, as for what is transformed by consciousness, the solitary image (adravya-pratibhāsa) follows exclusively from the seeing part (darśanabhāga), without producing a separate seed. Ximing allows that unconditioned [phenomena] transformed by consciousness separately perfume and form seeds; I now say this is not so. If one allows the formation of seeds, then, when a defiled mind takes space and the like as objects, if it is allowed to form separate seeds, then taking other realms as objects and taking undefiled [phenomena] as objects would both have to form seeds. If they were allowed to form seeds, they would subsequently produce actualities and could also serve as underlying objects (alambanavastu). How could one say they "merely cognize nominal objects"? If it is said that although they produce underlying objects of other realms and of the undefiled, because these are not real, they are said to cognize nominal objects—if so, they would have to be nominal, and nominal phenomena, like non-existence, cannot be cause-conditions (hetupratyaya). If one allows that those object-conditions do not produce separate seeds, then the unconditioned transformed by consciousness, etc., should by analogy be the same.