成唯識論了義燈 6.147

6.147

一云，護法據《攝大乘》，有能遍計、所遍計俱依他起。此所遍計即疎所緣緣，安惠共許，例親所緣緣，亦應有體，說所緣緣故。准無著、陳那俱有親、疎二所緣緣，故今此破，依共許教，立量破彼，非是護法，據自破他，此釋為勝。今此論文，舉反破量，不舉順成。舉順成者，應云佛親所緣緣，相、見分有，例餘相、見亦應是有，是所緣緣故。如佛相、見，然始反成，若二分無應非所緣緣，體非有故，如兔角等。安惠設許亦所緣緣，能所遍計是何所攝？若所遍計，是依他有；若能遍計，非是內心；若計所執，非所緣緣。不說無法，為所遍計故，安惠自許，因位諸心皆能計故，既說能計，即託依他為所遍計，故相、見無非所緣緣。故今難云見、相，體無非所緣緣。

One says: Dharmapāla relies on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, where both that which conceptually imagines and that which is conceptually imagined are the dependent nature. This which is conceptually imagined is the mediate objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), which Sthiramati mutually accepts; by analogy, the immediate objective condition should also have substance, because it is spoken of as an objective condition. In accordance with Asaṅga and Dignāga, both immediate and mediate objective conditions exist; therefore the present refutation relies on mutually accepted teachings to establish a syllogism to refute him, not that Dharmapāla refutes the other based on his own system; this explanation is superior. Now this treatise passage presents an indirect refutation syllogism, not a direct proof. If presenting a direct proof, it should say: The Buddha's immediate objective conditions, the objective and subjective parts, exist; by analogy, other objective and subjective parts should also exist, because they are objective conditions; like the Buddha's objective and subjective parts. Then one begins the indirect proof: If the two parts are nonexistent, they should not be objective conditions, because their substances do not exist, like a rabbit's horn, etc. Even if Sthiramati accepts that they are also objective conditions, under what are that which imagines and that which is imagined subsumed? If they are that which is imagined, they exist as dependent; if they are that which imagines, they are not the internal mind; if they are the conceptually imagined, they are not objective conditions. Nonexistent phenomena are not spoken of as that which is conceptually imagined; because Sthiramati himself accepts that all minds in the causal stage can imagine, since they are said to be able to imagine, they rely on the dependent as that which is imagined; therefore the objective and subjective parts, being nonexistent, are not objective conditions. Therefore it now objects that the objective and subjective parts, having no substance, are not objective conditions.