成唯識論演祕 7.132

7.132

詳曰：《疏》及傳釋其理稍通，有義所斷恐乖論旨。論旨者何？謂論本明所緣之境，顯境不同，有四真實。故三十六云：「此真實義，品類差別復有四種。」「義」即境也。今取其智能有所行，名有所行，不約為境；豈與本論不成楚、越？論據一分淨境為言，非境義同以染依他便例責也。今助二釋：一云：根本智所行真如，真如所攝；餘無漏智，緣安立等所變相等，亦名二智所行真實，正智所攝；不同有漏虛妄分別，非相等攝，故七十三無漏有為總名正智。

Detailed analysis: The Commentary and the transmitted explanation are reasonably consistent, but the determination of this opinion is feared to deviate from the intention of the treatise. What is the intention of the treatise? The treatise fundamentally clarifies the ālambana-realm; to demonstrate differences in the realm, there are four realities. Hence fascicle thirty-six says: 'This real referent further has four categories of differentiation.' 'Referent' is precisely the realm. Now, taking the cognition that can possess a domain and calling it 'having a domain' without defining it as the realm—how would that not be as estranged from the root treatise as the states of Chu and Yue? The treatise speaks on the basis of a portion of the pure realm; it is not that the meaning of realm is identical such that one can make an analogy and challenge it with defiled dependent nature. Now I offer two auxiliary explanations: First, it says: Suchness, which is the domain of fundamental cognition, is subsumed under suchness; the other anāsrava cognitions, which take the transformed marks of the established truths and so forth as ālambana, are also named the reality that is the domain of the two cognitions, and are subsumed under correct cognition. Unlike sāsrava false discrimination, they are not subsumed under marks; therefore in fascicle seventy-three, anāsrava conditioned dharmas are collectively named correct cognition.