成唯識論演祕 2.103

2.103

Some versions of the Commentary say: "There is no need for addition or deletion." There are briefly two explanations: The first says that the meaning is correct, but the word "not" is an error. Although existent and non-existent objects are both objects, they are only objects of the mind and not the objects of the five consciousnesses; speaking in terms of meaning, there must be addition or deletion, not that the text is ungrammatical and requires addition or deletion. The second says that the word "not" is correct and the word "meaning" is mistaken, since that text is already correct. In the first explanation, there is no need to delete the five characters "even if the five consciousnesses' objects, etc."; merely treating the five as the subject as initially proposed avoids fault. Both explanations are plausible, but the latter is slightly more fluent.