成唯識論演祕 6.188

6.188

詳曰：若言緣無得起慮者，恐惑者言相無心生，故境非真便遣斯惑，何得非勝？又影像者，但不離心，如何得云即是心耶？

I evaluate this as follows: If one says that 'reflection can arise taking non-existence as ālambana', one fears that confused people would say the nimitta is non-existent yet citta arises. Therefore, saying 'the object is not real' precisely dispels this confusion—how could it not be superior? Moreover, as for the reflection [nimitta-bhāga], it is merely not separate from citta; how can one say that it is identically citta itself?