成唯識論演祕 2.80

2.80

Detailed analysis: Although the original intent was to refute external [matter] with resistance, the Treatise now refutes it by means of the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya). The objective condition is broad, while the meaning of resistance is narrow. Using the broad to establish the narrow, so as to refute another's mind, etc., as not being one's own immediate object—what fault is there in this? If one does not accept this, then the Treatise's heading of the term "objective condition" would not exhaustively subsume the meaning, and would again incur the fault of indefiniteness. The other party accepts that another's mind, though an object, is not transformed by one's own consciousness, because it is external to oneself. Hence, we know that the Treatise's intent generally encompasses all objective conditions; one must not say that it is not the text's intent. Moreover, the Commentary's intent is: another's mind, mental factors, etc., are not one's own immediate condition, not that they are non-objects, and it does not reject the meaning of mind. Why raise the objection that the Treatise only refutes matter and not mind? The objection misses the Commentary's purpose, but grasps the profound subtlety of the Treatise; the Commentary is truly worthy of contemplation.