成唯識論演祕 3.970

3.970

詳曰：若解四、五與第六同，可如所責。釋既有差，義乃不同，別說何咎？設同四、五，前別後總，釋結不同，復亦何失？若准餘釋，不約依、境，更據何理云績遍依？若據根、境，與疏何殊？愛憎斯異。

Examination: If one understands the fourth and fifth to be identical with the sixth, it could be rebuked as stated. But since the explanations differ, their meanings are not the same, so what fault is there in stating it separately? Even supposing it were identical with the fourth and fifth, with the preceding being particular and the subsequent being general, the explanations and conclusions differing, what error would there be? If we follow the other explanation, without referring to support and object, on what further principle could one say that it is continuously and pervasively supported? If it relies on faculty and object, how does it differ from the Commentary? It is merely a difference of love and hate.