成唯識論演祕 2.270

2.270

詳曰：《疏》無誤也，不同色、聲有示他義為實表色，不同種子有相續義為假無表，云非表等，不障以為假表色也。若不爾者，後既知非章中許表，云何於疏而不改耶？豈故欲將迷學者乎！《疏》既不改，故知不謬，本意如前。

Examination: The Commentary has no error. It is not like visible form and sound, which have the sense of indicating to another and are real manifest form; nor is it like seeds, which have the sense of continuity and are nominal unmanifest [form]. In saying it is not manifest and so on, this does not prevent it from being nominal manifest form. Were it not so, then since he later knew it was incorrect and permitted 'manifest' in that chapter, why did he not alter it in the Commentary? Could it be that he intentionally wished to confuse students? Since the Commentary was not altered, we know it is not erroneous, and the original intent is as stated before.