成唯識論述記 1.531

1.531

述曰：實、德、業之性即是同異性，離實、德、業，理定不然。「勿」者，莫也，莫此同異性，亦非同異性。總立量云：汝所執實、德、業性應非實、德、業性；異實、德、業故；如和合等。此中無有自言相違，以宗中言汝執簡故，非我許有實等之性。而今復言非實等性，今欲違此，故無此過。然今宗中實、德、業三，其舉喻中復以德、業等而為喻者，此中應別簡云：汝之實性，應非實性；異實句故；如德、業。汝德性應非德性；異德故；如實業。業亦應然，准可知也，更互為喻。然此有別，而無總量，二合有三，三合有一，為量可知。此中所言實、德、業者，即是各別當句為宗。言實等性者，即是同異性，故別也。文言如德、業，但舉實句之喻等；取德喻，謂實、業等；取業喻，謂實、德。

The Commentary states: The nature of substance, quality, and action is precisely the nature of generality-particularity; being apart from substance, quality, and action is logically inadmissible. 'Wu' means 'lest'; lest this nature of generality-particularity would also not be the nature of generality-particularity. Formulating a general inference: The nature of substance, quality, and action held by you should not be the nature of substance, quality, and action; because it is different from substance, quality, and action; like inherence and so forth. Here there is no fallacy of contradiction with one's own words (svavacana-viruddha), because the thesis is qualified by the words 'held by you'; it is not that I accept that there is a nature of substance and so forth, yet now state again that it is not the nature of substance and so forth. Wishing now to contradict their [position], there is no such fallacy. However, now in the thesis there are the three—substance, quality, and action—and in adducing the example it again uses quality, action, and so forth as the example; here one should qualify them separately, saying: Your nature of substance should not be the nature of substance; because it is different from the category of substance; like quality and action. Your nature of quality should not be the nature of quality; because it is different from quality; like substance and action. Action should also be treated likewise, which can be understood by analogy, mutually serving as examples. However, while there are distinct [inferences], there is no single general inference: combinations of two yield three, and combinations of three yield one; the formulations can be known. What is spoken of here as substance, quality, and action refers to each respective category as the subject. When speaking of the nature of substance and so forth, that is precisely the nature of generality-particularity, hence they are distinct. The text says 'like quality and action', merely adducing the example for the substance category; taking the example for quality, it means substance, action, and so forth; taking the example for action, it means substance and quality.