成唯識論了義燈 7.78

7.78

《無性論》云：「明謂能照無有義智」者。此未正能照，照之前相立「能照」名。此依證達惠為明解，故經頌云：「非不見真如，而能了諸行」。如名道火，意喻事火。正熱燒照前之煖相，似彼燒熱，立以「煖」名。非體不煖，但非正火，非正名煖。若觀無義智體即明，何名前相立明得名？下亦不應云：「明相轉盛」。又此明得即是尋思，《無性論》云：「假有實無，方便因相說名尋思」。又無漏智可不名明耶？

When the commentary of Asamāhita states: "'Light' refers to the wisdom capable of illuminating the absence of external objects," this does not yet mean the actual capacity to illuminate; the premonitory sign of illumination is designated as "capable of illuminating." This explains "light" based on the wisdom of realization and comprehension; hence the sūtra verse states: "Not without seeing tathatā / Can one comprehend conditioned phenomena." Just as the fire of the path is named by analogy to worldly fire: the heat that precedes actual burning and illuminating is similar to that burning heat, so it is designated as "heat." It is not that its nature is not warm, but it is not actual fire, nor is it properly called "heat." If the substance of the wisdom contemplating the absence of external objects were itself the light, why would the premonitory sign be designated as "obtaining light"? Nor should it say below: "The sign of light becomes increasingly intense." Furthermore, this obtaining of light is itself investigation (paryeṣaṇā). The commentary of Asamāhita says: "Existent as designations and nonexistent in reality: this sign of expedient causation is termed investigation." Moreover, could immaculate wisdom not be termed light?