成唯識論述記 1.435

1.435

述曰：第二，破轉計非成一相。「此三變時」者，謂三事轉變成大等時，「若不和合成一相」者，意說三體各變一相，即大等法體亦有三，非一相故。此上牒計，下正申難。「應如未變」三事本體，即應見三，如何見一？量云：三事和合所成之相，應見三別；許有三故；如見三相體未變時。又若不和合但成一相，相中有三者，何故現見是一色等？世間現見色唯是一，而言但由三法成，故色等三別者，即違現量及世間過。量云：色等諸法，應各見三；體有三故；如汝三事。此難三體成三相義。次下更難成一相義：前第一翻難相應三，或應非一。雖似同此難，此難若成一相，失本三相及與本體，故與前失體、性各別。

The Commentary states: Second, refuting the shifted position that they do not establish a single characteristic. "When these three transform" refers to when the three entities transform into mahat and so forth. "If they do not combine to establish a single characteristic" means that each of the three essences transforms into one characteristic, so the essences of the principles such as mahat would also be three, not a single characteristic. The above cites their position; below directly presents the objection. "They should be like when untransformed": the original essences of the three entities should then be seen as three; how could they be seen as one? The syllogism is: The characteristics established by the combination of the three entities should be seen as three distinct ones; because you accept that there are three; like seeing the three characteristics when the essences are untransformed. Furthermore, if they do not combine and only establish a single characteristic, yet within the characteristic there are three, why is it directly perceived as a single matter of form and so forth? In the world, form is directly seen to be only one; but if you say that it is established merely by three principles, so form and so forth are distinct as three, this incurs the fault of contradicting direct perception and worldly consensus. The syllogism is: Principles such as form should each be seen as three; because their essences are three; like your three entities. This refutes the doctrine that three essences establish three characteristics. Next below, it further refutes the doctrine of establishing a single characteristic: the previous first round objected that the characteristics should be three or should not be one. Although it seems identical to this objection, this objection asserts that if they establish a single characteristic, they lose their original three characteristics and their original essences; hence, it is distinct from the previous fault regarding essence and nature.