成唯識論了義燈 5.70

5.70

Taking understanding (mati) as the substance of doubt, Ximing explains: "Three reasons establish this." The Yaoji says: "By reference to the subsequent master's refutation, some explanations conform to the text." Now I say this is not so. In the citation of the proof by etymology, it says: "Because mati and prajñā have no difference in meaning"—this is a further explanation of mati. Otherwise, if there is doubt as to how vi- modifying mati could be understanding, he therefore further explains: "Because mati and prajñā have no difference in meaning." If one were to take prajñā as the third reason, what rationale would there be?