成唯識論演祕 6.428

6.428

詳曰：雖有高斷恐為未可，未可理何？若以相似名同可爾，而云見等變影自緣，明所緣同，前《疏》已斷勝而難知，難知之理如次前明，臧否可悉。又以第四緣於第二，第二復緣後之二種。俱不變相者，二緣三、四，與彼四、三緣三、四時，而復何別？俱不變故。四緣第二責亦同之，由斯便有錯亂之過，故本疏明無雜可寶。

We comment: Although this is an eminent judgment, I fear it cannot be accepted. What is the reason it cannot be accepted? If one terms them identical through resemblance, that may be admissible; but to say that the darśana and so forth transform an image to take itself as object in order to explain having the same cognitive object—the previous Commentary has already judged this to be superior yet difficult to understand, and the reason it is difficult to understand was just clarified above; its merits and flaws can be known. Furthermore, taking the fourth as cognizing the second, and the second in turn cognizing the latter two kinds—if neither transforms an aspect, then what difference is there between the second cognizing the third and fourth, and the fourth and third cognizing the third and fourth? For neither transforms [an aspect]. The fourth cognizing the second is subject to the same criticism. Due to this, there would be the fault of confusion; therefore, what the basic Commentary clarifies as unconfused is truly precious.