成唯識論述記 1.540

1.540

述曰：自下又以非實例實等難。謂離實等外，別有實等性，應離非實等外，立有非實等性。且如除實、德、業以外，並名非實、非德、非業，即餘六句及無法是。有體法者，唯六句是。今言七句應有非實性；異實性故；如德、業。德、業相望亦爾。又雖知德等，皆名非實，其性即是非實性攝。然合八句，皆非實性及與無法，無別有一大非實性總該九法，故為量也。量云：除實餘九，應別有一總性；實、非實中，隨一攝故；如實句。此量雖成，然可直例，不令立實性，何須令立非實性也，便違自宗。若不爾者，即一德上他說亦有非實性，故犯相符過。非德等性，例亦應然，故論言等。

The Commentary states: Next, it refutes by using non-substance to parallel substance and the rest. That is to say, if outside of substance and the rest there were separately substance-ness and the rest, then apart from non-substance and the rest, one should posit the existence of non-substance-ness and the rest. Now, excluding substance, quality, and action, all the rest are termed non-substance, non-quality, and non-action; namely, the remaining six categories and non-existence (abhāva). Those dharmas with real entity (vastu) are only the six categories. Now it is asserted that the seven categories should possess non-substance-ness; because they are distinct from the nature of substance; just as quality and action. Quality and action compared to one another are also like this. Furthermore, although one knows that quality and the rest are all termed non-substance, their nature is subsumed under non-substance-ness. Yet the combined eight categories are all non-substance-ness and non-existence, and there is no separate grand non-substance-ness comprehensively covering the nine dharmas; hence the inference is formulated. The inference states: The remaining nine apart from substance should have a separate generic nature; because they are subsumed under one or the other between substance and non-substance; just like the category of substance. Although this inference is valid, one can simply draw the parallel directly so that they do not posit substance-ness; what need is there to force them to posit non-substance-ness, which would contradict our own tenet? If it were not so, even on a single quality the other school also states there is non-substance-ness, and so one would commit the fault of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana). Non-quality-ness and the rest should also be paralleled in this way; therefore the treatise says 'and the rest.'