成唯識論演祕 4.184

4.184

詳曰：義有萬途，豈無此理，若順二論，疏釋為優。云無種者，彰無後類，已生之言明與現俱，更有何求須安不字？此論應云：彼依不能而更引生後種說故，義繁文約，省不等字，故彼論釋言後蘊也。若但據種，自類相引，餘時皆然，何假以彼後蘊而釋？亦不可言釋家不得無著之意。何所以者？而師子覺樞衣北面伏膺函杖而造其釋，豈誤本旨？以此而推，優劣知矣。

I examine this and say: Principles have myriad paths; how could this reason be lacking? Yet if one accords with both treatises, the Commentary's explanation is superior. Saying 'without seeds' reveals that there is no subsequent type; the words 'already arisen' clarify that it co-exists with the actual state. What further requirement is there that one must insert the word 'not'? This treatise should say: 'Because it is spoken relying on being unable to further induce subsequent seeds.' The meaning being complex while the text is concise, words such as 'not' were omitted, so that treatise explains it as referring to the final aggregate. If it were based solely on seeds inducing their own kind, that would be true at all other times; why resort to explaining it via that final aggregate? Nor can one say that the commentator failed to grasp Asaṅga's intention. For what reason? When Buddhasiṃha gathered his robes, faced north, and respectfully received instruction from his teacher to compose his commentary, could he have mistaken the original purport? Inferring from this, the superior and inferior become known.