成唯識論了義燈 5.230

5.230

《論》：為離心體有別自性等。本釋如《疏》。《要集》云：妙音不立，勘文不獲。《楞伽》、《中百論》師等者，護法造論不闕。此地諸師所難，《智度論》等廣辨心所，復何人也？或可護法假敘賓主。今謂本意云：《楞伽》、《中百論》等諸師，非說此地但說西國，如《理門論》云：破古因明師。古因明師不善之者，非無著等。《楞伽》等師者，道理亦爾。雖《智度論》廣明心所何妨？有說即心分位，如《智度論》廣辨諸法。何妨清辨云：勝義空俗妄為有，不妨護法依彼等計假立賓主，起此問端。

Regarding the statement of the *Śāstra*: "In order to show that distinct from the mind's essence there are separate intrinsic natures, and so forth": The original explanation is as in the *Commentary*. The *Collection of Essentials* says: Ghoṣaka does not establish them; checking the text yielded nothing. Regarding the masters of the *Laṅkāvatāra*, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, the *Śataśāstra*, and so forth: When Dharmapāla composed the śāstra, none were omitted. If the masters of this land raised objections, whereas the *Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa* and so forth extensively distinguish mental factors, what kind of people were they again? Or perhaps Dharmapāla hypothetically framed the dialogue between host and guest. Now I say the original intention was: The masters of the *Laṅkāvatāra*, the *Śataśāstra*, and so forth, do not speak of this land but speak of the western realm; just as the *Nyāyamukha* speaks of "refuting ancient masters of hetuvidyā". Those who were not adept among ancient masters of hetuvidyā were not Asaṅga and the like. The masters of the *Laṅkāvatāra* and so forth are of the same principle. Although the *Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa* extensively explains mental factors, what prevents there being an explanation that they are states of mind, just as the *Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa* extensively distinguishes all dharmas? What prevents Bhaviveka from saying: "In the ultimate truth they are empty; conventionally and falsely they are existent"? There is no contradiction in Dharmapāla hypothetically setting up host and guest based on their doctrines to initiate this inquiry.