成唯識論述記 1.565

1.565

述曰：自下別破有二：初破本宗；後難救義。初有五量：第一，立量破其常住，從下向上，為因為宗。或以義取，如理應思。量云：大自在天決定非常；是能生故；如地、水等；餘能生他者，必從他生故。此中所說能生他因，得下貫通遍、實二宗。然下即以所破訖法而為因故，相乘為論，不然即有隨一不成，以彼不許大自在天非常等故。大自在天決定非遍；以非常故；如瓶等物。又非真實；以不遍故；如盆等物。今此既以非真實為法，即簡心、心所等法，是虛幻有，非真有故。真如等不爾，故許遍也。

The Commentary states: Below is the specific refutation, which has two [parts]: first, refuting their root doctrine; second, criticizing their attempt to rescue the position. In the first there are five syllogisms. The first sets up a syllogism to refute his eternality, proceeding from bottom to top, taking [the lower characteristic] as reason and [the upper] as thesis; or it may be grasped through the meaning, which should be considered according to reason. The syllogism runs: 'Great Maheśvara is definitely non-eternal; because he is a producer; like earth, water, and so forth; because anything else that produces another must be produced from another.' The reason 'producer of another' spoken of here penetrates through to the two theses below of omnipresence and reality. However, because below it takes what has just been refuted as the reason, it proceeds by compounding [them]; otherwise there would be the fault of being unproven for either party (anyatarāsiddha), because they do not accept that Great Maheśvara is non-eternal, and so on. 'Great Maheśvara is definitely not omnipresent; because he is non-eternal; like a jar, and so forth.' 'Furthermore, he is not real; because he is not omnipresent; like a basin, and so forth.' Now, here, since 'being not real' is taken as the predicate, it excludes citta, caitasika, and other such dharmas, because they are illusory existents and not real existents. Tathatā and the like are not so, and are thus accepted as omnipresent.