成唯識論了義燈 5.233

5.233

《論》：此依世俗若依勝義等者，本釋如《疏》。《要集》云：此定不依第一俗、第三真、第四真、俗，識心、心所辨差別故。下文諸識真俗相對望第四，真俗等漸次門故，離重言故。今謂不爾。今此且以心與心所約二諦辨，亦例於識。下八識中，心所同王，異聚相望，攝其見、相，皆悉歸識，唯識宗故。故下云：八識自性不可言定一。行相、所依、緣、相應異故。既約緣、依、相應辨異。故知不異亦說行相、依、緣、相應。不爾應非如幻事等，有定性故，前別後總相望對辨，俱四真俗，亦無重言失。

Regarding the statement of the *Śāstra*: "This is based on the conventional; if based on the ultimate, and so forth": The original explanation is as in the *Commentary*. The *Collection of Essentials* says: This certainly does not rely on the first conventional, the third ultimate, or the fourth ultimate and conventional, because it distinguishes differences between the consciousness, mind, and mental factors. Later in the text, the various consciousnesses are contrasted in ultimate and conventional against the fourth ultimate and conventional in a stepwise progression, in order to avoid repeating statements. Now I say this is not so. Here, provisionally distinguishing mind and mental factors in terms of the two truths also serves as a parallel for consciousness. In the eight consciousnesses below, mental factors are identical with the king; viewing the distinct aggregates in relation to one another, subsuming their seeing and appearing [aspects], all are returned to consciousness, because this is the Vijñaptimātra school. Therefore below it says: The intrinsic nature of the eight consciousnesses cannot be said to be definitely one, because their aspect, support, intentional object, and concomitance differ. Since differences are distinguished in terms of intentional object, support, and concomitance, one knows that non-difference is also spoken of in terms of aspect, support, intentional object, and concomitance. Were it not so, they should not be like illusions and so forth, possessing a definite nature. Contrasting and distinguishing the former distinct and the latter general against each other, both involve the four ultimate and conventional truths, nor is there the fault of repeating statements.