成唯識論述記 1.163

1.163

或復諸師各說異理，故此論下多言有義。勿皆謂一師假設研究，致多有義，然多釋中為例非一；或初無有義，後方言有義，勝者在初；或於初、後皆言有義，勝者多後；或彼初、後皆言有義，理等教齊，任情取捨。此大文例非獨此論，餘新翻者皆准此知。謂前但解，後說理徵，此即一師所假說也；或前理廣，後理教略，初無有義，此為勝也；或前理略，後理教廣，皆言有義，而後勝也；或初、後有義，理教皆均，取捨難知，無偏勝也。今此亦爾，無偏勝故。

Or again, various masters each explain different principles, which is why below in this treatise it often says 'some hold'. One must not assume that it is always a single master hypothetically investigating, thereby leading to many instances of 'some hold'; nevertheless, among the multiple explanations, the conventions are not uniform: sometimes there is no 'some hold' at the beginning and only later does it say 'some hold', in which case the superior one is at the beginning; or it says 'some hold' both at the beginning and at the end, in which case the superior one is mostly at the end; or it says 'some hold' both at the beginning and at the end where the principles and scriptures are equal, leaving acceptance or rejection to one's judgment. This overarching textual convention is not unique to this treatise; other newly translated texts should all be understood in accordance with this. That is, when the former only explains and the latter uses reasoning to cross-examine, this is a hypothetical exposition by a single master; or when the former reasoning is broad while the latter reasoning and scriptural citations are brief, without 'some hold' at the beginning, the former is superior; or when the former reasoning is brief while the latter reasoning and scriptural citations are broad, both stating 'some hold', then the latter is superior; or when both the former and latter have 'some hold', with reasoning and scriptures being equal, so that acceptance and rejection are difficult to know, there is no one-sided superiority. The present case is also like this, because there is no one-sided superiority.