成唯識論演祕 3.223

3.223

答：見名行相，相但相似，名同所緣。不名行相，竟何失耶？又疏下會《瑜伽論》云：瑜伽據質名同所緣，此約影像名所緣等，豈可前後自為楚越？又按疏主《瑜伽鈔》云，若也，影像名行相者，即以本質為所緣者，體一名同；行相體別，故名不同。若以見分名行相者，即親相分，體雖各別，似名同一；見分體緣，各各異故，名為不同。由此故知，見名行相，第八王、所相分相似名同所緣，見分各別，名不同行。若也，相分名行相者，即行相同，如何說云不同一行？第八非定緣本質境，復云何說同一所緣？若云相分相似名同，若爾所緣行相是一，如何而說同、不同言？以此故知疏顛倒也。

Answer: The vision aspect is called the cognitive aspect; the images are merely similar and are called having an identical object. If they are not called cognitive aspects, what fault is there after all? Furthermore, below in the Commentary, in reconciling with the Yogācārabhūmi, it says: The Yogācārabhūmi speaks of having an identical object based on the external substance, whereas this is said regarding the reflected image as the object and so forth—how could the former and the latter contradict each other like Chu and Yue? Furthermore, according to the Subcommentary to the Yogācārabhūmi by the author of the Commentary: If reflected images are called cognitive aspects, then taking the external substance as the object, their substance being one, they are called identical; while the substances of the cognitive aspects are distinct, so they are called not identical. If the vision aspect is called the cognitive aspect, then taking the immediate image-aspects, although their substances are individually distinct, being similar they are called identical; while the substances taking objects in the vision aspect are each different, so they are called not identical. From this, one knows: The vision aspect is called the cognitive aspect; the image-aspects of the eighth primary consciousness and its mental factors are similar and called having an identical object, while their vision aspects are individually distinct and called having different cognitive aspects. If the image-aspect were called the cognitive aspect, then the cognitive aspects would be identical; how could it be said that they do not have the same cognitive aspect? The eighth consciousness does not definitively take an external substance as an object; how could one again speak of an identical object? If one says that the image-aspects being similar is called identical, then the object and the cognitive aspect would be one; how could one speak of "identical" and "not identical"? From this, one knows that the Commentary has reversed them.