成唯識論演祕 3.235

3.235

詳曰：非善破也，於無過中有過言故。疏中既云若約世俗見、相俱有，今且遠汝一切唯境，此豈不許彼有見耶？若言破餘不序疏者，破他可通，自立不爾。既據世俗見、相俱存，何理獨遣彼能緣相，又言心體為現種耶？若現行者既無能緣，何名現識，可審詳諸。

Examination: This is not a proper refutation, because it speaks of faults where there are no faults. Since the Commentary already says that if according to conventional truth both vision and image exist, then for now we reject your claim that everything is only objects—how does this not admit that he has the vision aspect? If one says that it refutes the others without citing the Commentary: refuting others might be permissible, but establishing one's own position is not. Since according to conventional truth both vision and image are maintained to exist, by what principle could one exclusively dispel his aspect capable of cognizing? Furthermore, when speaking of the substance of mind, is it active or seed? If it is active, since it lacks that which is capable of cognizing, how could it be called an active consciousness? This should be carefully examined.