成唯識論演祕 4.152

4.152

詳曰：疏之所云恒不恒等，如前兩釋過亦無有。斷言依二，恐乃雷同，此論、彼論皆言所依，不言依故。若言依者，一切皆許，種、現皆是，更何須會？若言依與所依無異，豈不違下護法所明？由此故知《伽》五十五正明所依，此論真、假而兼說也，不可以彼廣略會之。

Examination: What the Commentary states regarding constant, inconstant, and so forth, as explained in the two interpretations above, is also free of fault. Decisively asserting two bases is feared to be mere conformism, for both this treatise and that treatise say 'basis' (āśraya), and do not say merely 'support' (āśrita/āśraya-general). If one speaks of support, all agree that both seeds and actual [dharmas] are such; why would there be any further need to reconcile them? If one says that support and basis are no different, does this not contradict what Dharmapāla clarifies below? From this it is known that Yogācārabhūmi fascicle fifty-five properly clarifies basis, whereas this Treatise speaks of both the primary and figurative together; they cannot be reconciled merely through the broad and the brief.