唯識二十論述記 1.93

1.93

述曰：即第一難，頌第二句，「處定不成」。謂既無實境，許有此識生，何因如緣終南山識，於此山處起，餘處則不生，此及所餘，境實無故。謂立量云：非緣終南處，緣此識應生；執境實無識得生故；如緣終南處。此言現識，非謂此識。若說此識者，非此處亦生。然今且為處定比量，此識不生，例生比量，義准可知，然不繁作，下皆准悉。何因「等」言，即不應成。

The Commentary says: This is the first objection, corresponding to the second line of the verse: 'spatial determination is not established.' That is, since there is no real object, yet you grant that this consciousness arises, for what reason does a consciousness cognizing Mount Zhongnan arise in the place of this mountain, but not in other places, given that in this place and in the rest, the object is equally non-existent? That is, formulating the inference: In a place where Mount Zhongnan is not cognized, the consciousness cognizing it should arise; because consciousness can arise while holding that the object is genuinely non-existent; just like the place where Mount Zhongnan is cognized. Here 'present consciousness' is spoken of, not 'this consciousness.' If one spoke of 'this consciousness,' it would also arise in non-this places. However, for now we formulate an inference for spatial determination; the inference where this consciousness does not arise is analogously derived, its principle being known by implication, so we need not construct it repetitively, and the rest below follow this pattern. The word 'reason' and so forth means that it should not be established.