成唯識論述記 1.491

1.491

述曰：此難無礙量，後之九句全是無礙。實句之中，空、時、方、我四是無礙。今破無常、無質礙者，即德句十四全，十少分，及五業全，除無說句中一全，一少分。謂未生無全，不會無少分，非離識故。今破彼云：汝宗此等無常、無礙法，除覺等外，應不離心、心所；有實自性，無質礙故；如覺、樂等諸心、心所。彼心、心所即德句中覺、樂等攝，無常、無礙，故得為喻，然無相符極成之失，簡覺等故。彼宗說為非離心等故。彼說：意實是有礙攝，亦非是心，形如芥子，我所須具，非謂心也。設若是心，其喻即有，能立不成。無質礙因此不轉故，同品亦非定是有性，以非心故，無過失也。然此文略，故無簡別。

The Commentary states: This is the inference pressing on those without obstruction. The subsequent nine categories are entirely without obstruction. In the category of substance, four—space, time, direction, and self—are without obstruction. Now refuting those that are impermanent and lack physical obstruction, these are all fourteen of the category of quality, a minor portion of ten [qualities], and all five of action, excluding one entirely and a minor portion of one from the category of non-existence—namely, completely excluding prior non-existence, and a minor portion of non-existence by mutual exclusion, because they are not apart from consciousness. Now he refutes them, saying: These impermanent, unobstructed dharmas of your school, excluding awareness and the like, should not be apart from mind and mental factors; because they have real self-nature and lack physical obstruction; like all mind and mental factors such as awareness, pleasure, and the like. Those minds and mental factors are subsumed under awareness, pleasure, and so forth in the category of quality; being impermanent and unobstructed, they can serve as the example. Yet there is no fallacy of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana), because awareness and the like are excluded, as that school states that they are not apart from mind and so on. They say: the substance of manas is subsumed under having obstruction, and is also not mind; in shape it is like a mustard seed, an instrument required by the self, not meant as mind. If it were mind, the example would suffer from the fallacy of unproven probans (sādhyavikala), because the reason 'lacking physical obstruction' would not apply to it; nor would the homogeneous class definitely have substantial existence, because it would not be mind; hence there is no fault. However, this text is concise, so there is no qualification.