成唯識論了義燈 6.150

6.150

論。又諸習氣等。本釋如疏　西明云。又諸種子是第八相。若是所執應非因緣。以無體故。如空花等　今謂不爾。若許種子是相分收。彼計相無。何故護法第二卷難云假法如無體即無故。又不應言既非一異應如瓶等是假非實。瓶依四塵。非全無故。不同空花等。

Treatise: "Furthermore, all latent impressions, etc." The basic explanation is as in the commentary. Ximing says: "Furthermore, all seeds are the objective part of the eighth [consciousness]. If they were the imagined, they should not be causes and conditions, because they lack substance, like sky-flowers, etc." Now I say this is not so. If it were accepted that seeds are subsumed under the objective part, and his doctrine is that the objective part is nonexistent, why did Dharmapāla object in the second fascicle that conceptual phenomena are like nonexistent things because their substance is nonexistent? Furthermore, one should not say that since they are neither identical nor different, they should be like a vase, etc., being conceptual and not real. A vase relies on the four elements and is not completely nonexistent; it is not like sky-flowers, etc.