宗鏡錄 52.40

52.40

答。古釋三量分別者。第七見分是非量。境不稱心故。其第八見分。本非是我。今第七妄執為我。即不稱本質。又親緣第八見分不著。變相分緣。相分。本非是我。第七又執為我。又不稱相分。即兩重不稱境。故知非量。假實分別者。第七緣他本質。第八見分不著。但緣得中間假我相分故。境假非實。

Answer: In the ancient explanation distinguishing the three pramāṇas, the seventh's darśanabhāga is non-pramāṇa, because the object does not correspond to the mind. That eighth's darśanabhāga is fundamentally not a self; now the seventh falsely grasps it as a self, which does not correspond to the original substance (bimbamātra). Furthermore, it cannot directly reach and condition the eighth's darśanabhāga, but transforms a nimittabhāga to condition. The nimittabhāga is fundamentally not a self; the seventh again grasps it as a self, which does not correspond to the nimittabhāga either. Thus there is a twofold failure to correspond to the object; hence we know it is non-pramāṇa. In distinguishing the nominal and the real: the seventh cannot reach and condition the other's original substance, the eighth's darśanabhāga, but conditions only the intermediate nominal nimittabhāga of a self; hence the object is nominal, not real.