成唯識論述記 1.544

1.544

述曰：自下子段第三，破和合句義。我佛法中，法不相違，假立和合。然彼所執別有一法是實，是常，能和合法，能令實等不離相屬，相離不相屬，即不和合，故破之。量云：如彼所執和合句義，定非實有；許非是有性及非實等八句諸法攝故；如畢竟無，即兔角等。體是一法，舉非有為因；體是多法，舉非實為首。故因中言：非有實等。又性體別故，此中宗、因皆有所簡，如前可知。

The Commentary states: From here begins the third subsection, refuting the category of inherence (samavāya). In our Buddha-dharma, dharmas do not conflict, and inherence is conventionally established. But what they hold is that there is a separate dharma that is real, is permanent, can conjoin dharmas, and can cause substance and the rest to be inseparably connected; whereas being separated and unconnected means non-inherence. Hence it is refuted. The inference states: The category of inherence as held by them is definitely not real; because it is accepted to be subsumed neither under being-ness (bhāvatva) nor under the eight categories of dharmas such as non-substance; just like absolute non-existence, namely a rabbit's horns and the like. When the entity is one dharma, 'non-being' is brought up as the reason (hetu); when the entity is multiple dharmas, 'non-substance' is brought up first. Therefore in the reason it says: 'neither being, substance, nor the rest.' Moreover, because the nature and the entity are distinct, here the thesis (pakṣa) and reason both contain qualifications, as can be known from before.