成唯識論演祕 3.690

3.690

詳曰：界若現識，即依無別，論主何故別解二耶？界置親生諸法之言，依不云耶？夫言親者是因緣義，現八如何能為因緣？不能熏故？又現與種雖不名異，亦不得一。一既不成，取種何失？又前因相亦非唯現，又義不同，不可為證，既有多違，今還依疏。

Evaluation: If 'element' were the actively manifesting consciousness, it would not differ from 'support'; why then would the treatise master explain the two separately? In explaining 'element', he inserts the words 'directly producing all dharmas'; why does he not say this for 'support'? In general, speaking of 'direct' means the sense of primary cause (hetu-pratyaya); how could the active eighth [consciousness] act as a primary cause, since it cannot be perfumed? Furthermore, although the active manifestation and the seeds are not called different, neither can they be identical. Since identity is not established, what is the fault in taking seeds? Moreover, the previous causal characteristic was not exclusively active manifestation; and since the meaning differs, it cannot serve as evidence. Seeing that there are many contradictions, we now revert to following the Commentary.