成唯識論了義燈 6.34

6.34

《論》：「前七於八，所緣容有」者。西明云：第六所緣變虛空，心、心所等以為相分，亦熏生彼空等相種，非是能熏生第八現行見、相種，第八不緣空等種故。今謂不然，若緣虛空等別熏成種，虛空、極微等皆應非假，從種生故。多過如前第一卷辨，又許成種，雖見種別，非必無漏，八何不緣。若云假故八不緣者，即應如無不能成種，既許成種，即體實有，八定能緣，八既不緣，明虛空、極微不別成種。雖本釋云：第六熏成空等種子，不生第八現行相分，以八不緣虛空等故，不言離見別熏成種，不言此種，非八所緣，故言無過。

[Regarding] the text of the Treatise: "For the first seven toward the eighth, an objective support may exist": Ximing says: "The sixth's objective support transforms space, minds, and mental factors into an objective aspect, and also perfuses and generates the seeds of those aspects such as space; it does not perfuse and generate the eighth's active manifestation seeds of the seeing and objective aspects, because the eighth does not take the seeds of space and the like as its objective support." Now I say this is not so. If taking space and the like as objective support separately perfumed and formed seeds, then space, atoms, and the like would all have to be non-nominal, because they would arise from seeds. There are many faults, as clarified previously in the first fascicle. Moreover, if allowing that they form seeds, although they are distinct from the seeing seeds, they are not necessarily uncontaminated; why would the eighth not take them as its objective support? If one says that because they are nominal the eighth does not take them as its objective support, then like nonexistent [entities] they should not be able to form seeds. Since one allows that they form seeds, their entity is real, and the eighth would definitely be able to take them as its objective support. Since the eighth does not take them as its objective support, it is clear that space and atoms do not separately form seeds. Although the original commentary says: "The sixth perfuses and forms the seeds of space and the like, which do not generate the active objective aspect of the eighth, because the eighth does not take space and the like as its objective support," it does not say that they are perfumed into seeds apart from the seeing [aspect], nor does it say that these seeds are not what the eighth takes as its objective support; therefore, that statement has no flaw.