成唯識論演祕 3.191

3.191

If so, that absorption would entirely lack substance, and the function of the seed of revulsion would be neither absorption nor designation. The preceding Treatise states that designations are also capable of obstructing—what dharma does "designation" refer to? Furthermore, if that absorption is established on the basis of the preventive function: is the absorption identical to the function, or is the absorption only designated on the basis of the function? If the absorption were identical to the function, how could the absorption be designated? If it were established on the basis of the function, there would be the fault of infinite regress. Therefore, one knows that the absorption is precisely the seed's preventive function; it is not an absorption of a distinct sphere. Being fixed, it is called designated; that the fundamental consciousness does not take it as an object is not because it is designated. Furthermore, it was said: Taking the seed as an object is also taking the designated as an object. If so, the fundamental consciousness would have to transform by conceptual discrimination. Because of this, the reasoning of the Commentary is indeed fully coherent.