成唯識論了義燈 7.289

7.289

然無為名智，或隣近名、或有財釋。《寶性論》中云由此有趣及涅槃故，得名有財。然正解者，是依主釋，智之性故。不可相應名為鏡智，從有財釋；智非能有，鏡非所有故。若云識及餘所有惠俱，故名有財者，亦不應理，不為餘所有此智故。現相應故，是隣近釋，如四念住。若淨第八名為智者，亦同念住正是隣近，不通依主，依、所依定故。此下文云「識為主故」，雖果智強，不名為主。設依主言不同能、所依，以識依智，應名智識，如眼識等。既不如是，明非依主。

However, the unconditioned being named 'wisdom' is either designated through proximity or is a bahuvrīhi compound. In the Ratnagotravibhāga it says that because one thereby has the realms of rebirth and nirvāṇa, it obtains the name of a bahuvrīhi. However, the correct explanation is that it is a tatpuruṣa compound, because it is the nature of wisdom. It cannot be that association is named 'mirror wisdom' based on a bahuvrīhi compound, because wisdom is not the possessor and the mirror is not what is possessed. If one says that consciousness and the other [mental factors] are accompanied by discernment and are therefore named a bahuvrīhi, this is also unreasonable, for this wisdom is not possessed by the others. Because of active association, it is an explanation through proximity, like the four applications of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna). If the purified eighth consciousness is named wisdom, it is likewise just like the applications of mindfulness: precisely an explanation through proximity, not admitting of tatpuruṣa, because the support (āśraya) and what is supported (āśrita) are fixed. Below the text says, 'because consciousness is the master'; although the wisdom of the fruit is powerful, it is not named the master. Even if the term tatpuruṣa did not follow the supporting and the supported, if consciousness depended on wisdom, it should be called 'wisdom-consciousness', like 'eye-consciousness' and so forth. Since it is not so, it is clear that it is not a tatpuruṣa.