成唯識論演祕 4.429

4.429

詳曰：此不為例。色無餘名，不同香等，故取總名，以標別稱。心有別號，何得例同？故今解云：行相何要取別相耶，取總何失？前解第八了別為行，亦取總也，故不須例，隨應說故。

Critique: This is not an analogy. Form has no other name, unlike fragrance and the like; hence it takes the general name to designate a specific designation. Citta has a specific designation; how could it be analogous? Therefore it is now explained: Why must the ākāra take the specific character? What fault is there in taking the general? In the earlier explanation, discerning was taken as the ākāra of the eighth, which also took the general; therefore there is no need for analogy, as it is explained according to appropriateness.