宗鏡錄 4.25

4.25

Answer: If it were so, what fault would you find? [Opponent:] Both have faults. If negating objects apart from the mind means they are non-existent, then the object-aspect (nimittabhāga) that is not apart from the mind remains; why then say only 'representation-only' (vijñaptimātra) and not 'realm-and-consciousness-only'? If negating objects not apart from the mind means they are non-existent, there should only be the three active transformation parts, incurring the fault of lacking the transformed object-aspect. How can this be resolved? Answer: Saying 'representation-only' negates objects outside the mind as non-existent; it does not negate internal objects, the object-aspect not apart from consciousness, as non-existent.