成唯識論了義燈 5.47

5.47

言所緣事不同者，略有二解，一云：非體及相，緣無法時彼無體故，無分別智無相狀故，但緣於境差別義故。此解不當，豈緣境時不得自相？二云：體事若爾無法何有體事？答：緣無心不起，無法不稱事。緣無心既生，有無皆體事，俱得名法，各持自性，何非是事？

Regarding 'the objects of focus (vastu) being different', there are briefly two explanations. One says: it is neither intrinsic nature (svabhāva) nor characteristic (lakṣaṇa); because when cognizing non-existent dharmas they have no intrinsic nature, and because non-conceptual wisdom (nirvikalpa-jñāna) has no characteristics, it merely cognizes the differentiated meanings of the intentional object. This explanation is improper: when cognizing an intentional object, could it not apprehend its own-characteristic (svalakṣaṇa)? The second says: it is real entity (vastu). If so, how can a non-existent dharma have a real entity? Answer: a mind cognizing non-existence does not fail to arise, and a non-existent dharma does not fail to be called an entity. Since the mind cognizing non-existence does arise, both existence and non-existence are real entities; both can be called dharmas, each maintaining its own nature—how could they not be entities?