成唯識論演祕 7.120

7.120

詳曰：如名詮名，所詮之名豈非名耶？若是名者，何非所詮？名依識變，何非名相？若許是相，相即能詮。若以識能變能詮故名能詮者，應相從故，從於能變，但名分別；從所變故，唯相、名二。此既不爾，彼云何然？故《疏》為勝。今助一釋：相、分別二唯是所詮，名通能、所。雖名識變，亦是相收；然據別義，但稱為名。若不爾者，即有如前相從例失。思之可知。

Detailed analysis: Just as a name expresses a name, how could the expressed name not be a name? If it is a name, why is it not what is expressed? Name is manifested based on consciousness; how is it not the mark of the name? If one admits that it is a mark, then the mark is precisely the expresser. If because consciousness can transform into the expresser it is named the expresser, then by following along with it, following the transformer, it should only be named discrimination; following what is transformed, it should only be mark and name. Since this is not the case, how could that be so? Therefore, the Commentary is superior. Now I provide an auxiliary explanation: Mark and discrimination are both exclusively what is expressed; name applies to both expresser and what is expressed. Although name is transformed by consciousness and is also gathered under mark, based on its distinct meaning it is merely called name. Were it not so, there would be the fault of the aforementioned analogy of following along. This can be understood upon reflection.