成唯識論了義燈 7.78

7.78

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?