唯識二十論述記 2.33

2.33

The treatise has the statement of the thesis and the reason. The Ālambanaparīkṣā establishes an inference to refute this in terms of the ālambana-pratyaya: 'An ālambana-pratyaya means that the apprehending consciousness arises bearing that aspect, and there is a substantial entity causing the apprehending consciousness to arise relying upon it', thus possessing both limbs of the definition. We do not accept the existence of atoms of form and so on; even if they had a substantial entity capable of generating the five consciousnesses, they might allow the sense of a condition (pratyaya), but they are not the object (ālambana), like the eye faculty and so forth. Because that aspect does not exist on the eye consciousness and the others, an inference was thereupon established: 'Atoms, in relation to the five consciousnesses, may be conditions but are not objects (pratijñā); because their aspect is absent from the consciousness (hetu); like the eye faculty and so forth (dṛṣṭānta).' Although the wording differs, the meaning is the same as here. The first fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun states something slightly similar to this; that treatise says: 'It is not the case that when all atoms are in a state of aggregation, each can serve as an object for the five consciousnesses, because the aspect of atoms is absent from this consciousness.' If they should rescue [their position] by saying: 'Atoms individually have an aspect of composition that serves as the object of the five consciousnesses; the aspect of composition is a resembling single aspect, and this aspect is a function, larger than the original atom; function is not separate from substance, and since the substance exists substantially, it forms an ālambana-pratyaya.' That treatise refutes them, saying: 'It is not the case that when composed, the substances and aspects of these atoms differ from when they are not composed; therefore, in the composed state, just as when uncomposed, the atoms of form and so on are not objects of the five consciousnesses.' Yet there are further rescues and further specific cross-examinations, as explained in the first commentary on the Cheng weishi lun.