宗鏡錄 62.13

62.13

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.