成唯識論演祕 2.90

2.90

Detailed analysis: This is merely an apparent refutation, falsely finding fault where there is none. The Commentary discusses that on that mental consciousness there must be an image resembling the object, before that object of matter, etc., can be called an object; if not, it would not be so. Why? Because the cognizer would lack the function of grasping the object. Furthermore, when the eye consciousness cognizes matter, if there were no image resembling the object on the consciousness, and the material object were called the object of the eye, then matter must also be the object of the ear consciousness, because the ear consciousness also lacks the image resembling matter. If it were not so, it would contradict inference; if one accepts that it is so, there would be the fault of confusion. Therefore, there must be an image resembling the object. However, the Commentary's wording is concise while its meaning is rich; only by prolonged reading and careful reflection will the profound intent be realized. The Commentary does not decide that the image resembling the object belongs to the object. Moreover, the Commentary next says that the image resembling the object is the mental aspect (ākāra), differing between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; in the section explaining the four parts, this will certainly become clear of itself.