成唯識論述記 1.251

1.251

述曰：初之二句以隨身故，難可分析；後之二句以可析故，難體非一。初比量云：汝、我應可分析；許卷、舒故；如橐風等。言隨身者，有卷、舒義，今以隨身顯事為難，不說同喻，義准應知。若以隨身為因，影為同喻故。後比量云：汝、我非實一；以可析故；如瓶、盆等。以前難破，令其可析，故得為因。或以隨身為非一因，汝、我非定一，許卷、舒故，如牛等皮。此破第二有五比量。

The Commentary states: The first two phrases use 'conforming to the body' to challenge that it can be divided; the latter two phrases use 'being divisible' to challenge that its substance is not one. The first inference is: Your self should be divisible; because you admit contracting and expanding; like the wind in a bellows and the like. The phrase 'conforming to the body' contains the meaning of contracting and expanding; here, using 'conforming to the body' to demonstrate the matter forms the objection, without stating a homologous example, which should be known by analogy with the meaning. If 'conforming to the body' is taken as the reason, it implicitly suggests the homologous example. The latter inference is: Your self is not truly one; because it is divisible; like a vase, bowl, and the like. Because the previous objection refutes it and makes it divisible, it can serve as a reason. Or, taking 'conforming to the body' as the reason for non-oneness: Your self is not definitely one; because you admit contracting and expanding; like the hide of an ox or the like. In refuting the second [view], there are five inferences.