成唯識論了義燈 6.33

6.33

[Regarding] the text of the Treatise: "The secondary discussion has been completed," and so forth: Originally there are two interpretations. The idea [of the first] is: from "The four conditions rely on the fifteen bases" downwards is the secondary discussion. The preceding explanations of the four conditions are all the primary discussion. Why? Because after concluding and ending the secondary discussion, it should clarify the primary discussion. Below, it precisely clarifies that the seeds in the fundamental consciousness can serve as three conditions to generate active conceptualization, and so forth. In Ximing's two interpretations, from the four conditions onwards, all are taken to be secondary discussion. The stanza's intent is to demonstrate that conceptualization arises from conditions, not intending to clarify the distinctions among conditions. The Yaoji states: "If supporting the stanza's intent is the primary discussion, and not supporting the stanza's intent is the secondary discussion, then of the explanations, the latter interpretation is superior." Now I say this is not so. The original commentary explains the external objection: the objection that if there are no external objects, conceptualization would not arise. The treatise master's stanza answers: "Through the reciprocal power of the seed-consciousness, / Those conceptualizations arise," which precisely demonstrates that it is through conditions that conceptualization only then arises. Therefore, clarifying the four conditions and that conceptualization arises from conditions are both primary discussion, just as below, the fruits and causes of cyclic existence are all primary discussion. If one says that the four conditions are not primary discussion, why does the treatise, having concluded and ended the secondary discussion, still clarify the arising of conceptualization in terms of the four conditions? And how could it conclude later: "Relying on this internal consciousness, they are mutually conditioned arisings; the causes and fruits of conceptualization are established by both principle and teaching"? Abandoning the correct and grasping the perverse—why be so obstinate?