宗鏡錄 62.13

62.13

答。前陳便有自他一分所別不極成過。因中亦犯自他一分所依不成過。為前陳無極成眼識為所依故。所以安極成二字。簡後陳言定不親緣離自識色宗者。但是離眼識相分外。所有本質色。及餘四塵。但離眼識者。皆不親緣。若立敵共諍。只諍本質也。若大乘自宗。成立眼識親相分色。

Answer: The subject statement would then have the fallacy of an unestablished qualificand (viśeṣyāsiddha) for one part of oneself or the other. In the reason, it would also commit the fallacy of an unestablished substratum (āśrayāsiddha) for one part of oneself or the other, because the subject statement would lack a well-established visual consciousness to serve as the substratum. Therefore, the two characters ‘well-established’ are placed. Setting aside: the predicate statement says, as thesis, ‘definitely does not directly cognize matter that is separate from its own consciousness.’ That is, all external archetype matter (bimbadharmarūpa) outside the nimittabhāga of visual consciousness, as well as the other four sense-objects—whatever is separate from visual consciousness—is not directly cognized. If the proponent and the opponent argue together, they only dispute over the archetype. In Mahāyāna's own school, it establishes the immediate nimittabhāga matter of visual consciousness.