成唯識論演祕 4.458

4.458

詳曰：疏若斷云忘念別境念分攝故不說之，可如所責。疏撿行相有似、不似，故說、不說。一何輒斥，豈自不得論之妙旨，推過論主言遺忘乎？次前疏云是別境故，此不說者，對邪欲解攝相說也，此方悉陳。

Critique: If the Commentary had decisively concluded that forgetfulness was omitted because it is subsumed under the mindfulness of the particular states, it could be reproached as such. The Commentary inspected the ākāras for being similar or dissimilar, and accordingly explained or did not explain them. How can it be so hastily criticized? Could it be that one does not understand the profound intent of the treatise oneself, and imputes fault to the author of the treatise by calling it an oversight? When the preceding Commentary stated that it is omitted because it is a particular state, this was spoken in terms of subsuming wrong desire and wrong resolve; this is completely clarified here.