成唯識論演祕 6.254

6.254

Evaluation: In actual principle, cogitation and reliance do not exist when the mirror is viewed in relation to the substantial entity; however, the image in the mirror is not without reliance on the substantial entity. Based on this one aspect, saying that it lacks 'that which is cogitated'—how could that be incorrect? Alternatively, the substance of the mirror and the like does not depend on the substantial entity to arise, but its function of being able to illuminate is revealed dependent on what is illuminated. If there were nothing illuminated, in relation to what would it receive the name 'able to illuminate'? It is just as the true nature (tathatā) is fundamentally unconditioned, yet it must wait for the destruction of afflictions for the meaning of 'fruit' to be revealed; the mirror's ability to illuminate should also be understood similarly. Stating that there is 'that which is relied upon' on the basis of this meaning should also be logically admissible; furthermore, the Commentary's phrasing 'let it be supposed' allows its original intention to be known.