成唯識論了義燈 1.49

1.49

Next, regarding evaluation and selection: in the explanation with five gates, there is ambiguity in the names. If conditioned arising is called "false", this is indeed acceptable. But if viewed in terms of the five dharmas—sign, name, discrimination, correct cognition, and suchness—subsuming the former four entirely into suchness would mean that correct cognition is not false, and calling it all "subsuming the false" is therefore flawed. Furthermore, the Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā states: "Unreal discrimination exists," and so forth, down to "This is then in accord with the Middle Way." Therefore, it is impossible to say that the anāsrava is called "false". Second, subsuming signs into consciousness: this also has flaws. If the nature of consciousness is called consciousness, it does not differ from the previous gate. If it refers directly to the eight consciousnesses, consciousness is also a sign. Nor can it be said that the sign portion transformed by the king of the mind is called a sign, because none of the five dharmas are separate from consciousness, and all are called consciousness. If the five dharmas are collectively called consciousness, since suchness is not a sign, apart from the five there are no dharmas that could be subsumed into them. If it is said that it is spoken with reference to the essence of the teaching, namely the transformed sign portion, the contemporaneous mental factors also transform names and so forth to serve as cognitive objects for the signs. Subsuming the nominal into the real is the original third gate. The three dharmas and dharmic enumeration together belong under the fourth gate, that of the distinction between nature and function. Moreover, it is not exhaustive: since it is based on the three dharmas, why not base it on the five dharmas and the three natures? If it is said to follow abbreviation, it should rely on four gates; why bother dividing it into five? As for dividing it into eight gates, its merits and faults are analogous to the above.