[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt) › 4.25 # 宗鏡錄 4.25 English (machine translation) 4.25 - **Language:** English ### [4.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.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. - [Previous: 4.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.4.24) - [Next: 4.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.4.26) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.4) ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.4.25) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.4.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.4.25) · Pramāṇa