成唯識論演祕 2.203

2.203

詳曰：入定起願，但為出定時分限也，不緣於惑而方發願，與別解脫願有別也，不可為例。又彼眷屬通依餘立，有理無教，理亦難據。何所以者？若以二定依多種立例惑同者，別解脫惑理亦應爾，思種同時有多種故。又應表惑亦依現思相應法立，若言此等無遮惡能故不依立，定、道相應何得即有？若言非勝復非業性而不立者，定道應爾。若表惑及別解脫亦依俱時種及相應，理即有也，而教未見。

Detailed analysis says: Arising a vow upon entering meditation is merely to set a time limit for emerging from meditation; it is not that one initiates a vow only in relation to discipline, which is distinct from the vow of prātimokṣa, so it cannot serve as an analogy. Furthermore, that its retinue is generally based on other [factors] has reasoning but no teaching, and the reasoning is also hard to rely upon. Why is this? If because the two absorptions are established based on multiple seeds one analogies discipline to be the same, then prātimokṣa discipline should logically be so as well, since there are multiple seeds simultaneously with volition seeds. Furthermore, communicative discipline should also be established based on the dharmas associated with present volition. If one says these lack the ability to ward off evil and are therefore not established upon them, how could the factors associated with meditation and the Path possess it? If one says they are not established because they are neither superior nor of the nature of karma, meditation and the Path should be the same. If communicative discipline and prātimokṣa are also based on simultaneous seeds and associated dharmas, the principle might exist, but it has not been seen in the teaching.