成唯識論述記 1.672

1.672

述曰：量云：汝應無所執；但遮他故；如言：石女無兒、女等。汝所執法，即是所表，云何言：遮都無所表？無所表故，應無所執，以無執故，何所競耶！

The Commentary states: The syllogism runs: "You should have nothing posited; because you only exclude the other; like saying that a barren woman has neither son nor daughter, and so on." The dharma you posit is precisely what is affirmed; how can you say that exclusion affirms nothing at all? Since nothing is affirmed, there should be nothing posited; and with nothing posited, what is there to dispute?