成唯識論了義燈 6.80

6.80

今謂俱非，何者初釋云，受是外境界增上果。若爾，何故云受二種先業果，後釋云，境界是受增上果故。亦違前文二先業果，又境界是受所緣緣，即應受為果，如何說所緣還以為果。

We now say that both are incorrect. Why? The first explanation says that feeling is the dominant fruit of external objects. If so, why does [the text] say 'feeling has two kinds of fruits of prior karma'? The latter explanation says that the object is the dominant fruit of feeling; this also contradicts the earlier text's 'two [fruits of] prior karma'. Moreover, the object is the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) of feeling, which means feeling should be the fruit; how could one say that the object itself is the fruit?