成唯識論演祕 3.489

3.489

詳曰：何理得知明現作意？若言本說相應法故，故知現者。若爾，心所與心相應名為相應，應俱辨現，如何第八前亦明種？又若警覺現起種者，夫言種子生果為義，現果既生，何意須警？若令趣境，自是現能，論乃合云警應起現。若言由種，現方得生，雖在現位，但言警種。若爾，前觸例亦應然，前何不言和合三種？彼既不爾，此云何然？故疏初解理固無失，餘如《燈》會。

I examine: By what principle is it known that it clarifies actual attention? If you say that because it fundamentally explains associated dharmas, one knows it is actual; if so, mental factors associated with the mind are called 'associated', and both should be distinguished as actual—why did it also clarify seeds before the eighth [consciousness]? Furthermore, if it alerts an actually arising seed: as a rule, a seed has the meaning of producing a fruit; once the actual fruit has already arisen, why would it need to be alerted? If it causes it to orient toward the object, that is naturally the capacity of the actual state; the Treatise would then simply say it alerts the actual state that ought to arise. If you say that through the seed the actual state can only then arise, and though in the actual state it only speaks of alerting the seed: if so, the previous [discussion of] contact should by analogy also be like this—why did it not speak of harmonizing the three seeds previously? Since that was not so, why would this be so? Therefore, the Commentary's first explanation is solidly without fault; the rest is reconciled as in the Deng.