成唯識論演祕 3.970

3.970

Examination: If one understands the fourth and fifth to be identical with the sixth, it could be rebuked as stated. But since the explanations differ, their meanings are not the same, so what fault is there in stating it separately? Even supposing it were identical with the fourth and fifth, with the preceding being particular and the subsequent being general, the explanations and conclusions differing, what error would there be? If we follow the other explanation, without referring to support and object, on what further principle could one say that it is continuously and pervasively supported? If it relies on faculty and object, how does it differ from the Commentary? It is merely a difference of love and hate.