成唯識論了義燈 5.70

5.70

疑惠為體，西明釋云：三因成之。《要集》云：准後師破。有釋順文，今謂不爾。訓釋證中云：末底、般若義無異故者，轉釋末底。不爾有疑毘助末底，何得是惠？故轉解云：末底、般若義無別故，若將般若為第三因，有何所以？

Taking understanding (mati) as the substance of doubt, Ximing explains: "Three reasons establish this." The Yaoji says: "By reference to the subsequent master's refutation, some explanations conform to the text." Now I say this is not so. In the citation of the proof by etymology, it says: "Because mati and prajñā have no difference in meaning"—this is a further explanation of mati. Otherwise, if there is doubt as to how vi- modifying mati could be understanding, he therefore further explains: "Because mati and prajñā have no difference in meaning." If one were to take prajñā as the third reason, what rationale would there be?