成唯識論演祕 3.190

3.190

Examination: The principles are not confined to a single path; how could this meaning be absent? When the Commentary's intent is thoroughly investigated, it certainly does not conflict either, and the incoming objection turns out to be fallacious. As for the reason why: when it says that nature is determined by conforming to the fundamental consciousness and by confronting cause and fruit, this is explained on the basis of the substance of seeds, not on the basis of their function. The functions of wholesome and unwholesome are established in their two natures by themselves; how would they depend on cause and fruit before being called wholesome or unwholesome? Furthermore, the substance of a seed conforms to the cause and fruit of consciousness, and since its nature is not permanent, how can one demand that wholesome, unwholesome, and other seeds be definitively restricted to only two natures? Furthermore, because the substance of a seed is not apart from consciousness, it is called indeterminate; if one then objects that the function of a seed is not apart from the substance of the seed and must therefore also become indeterminate, then by the same token, because the seeds of form are not apart from consciousness, they should lack material obstruction; and because the actual fruits of the seeds of form are not apart from the seeds, they should lack material obstruction, since substance and function, cause and fruit, are neither identical nor separate. Since this is not the case, how could that be so? Furthermore, it was said: [The eighth consciousness] only takes as an object the function of the seed of revulsion, and does not take as an object designated dharmas such as the absorption of non-conception.