成唯識論述記 2.363

2.363

述曰：第一、六轉無差難，破所引第六轉言。彼立量云：之有為相言，別有體；有第六轉言故；如天授之衣，祠授之鉢等。今為作不定過。又如世言色、心之體，非離色、心而別有體，返成生等，非離於法有體亦然，謂立量言：第六轉言所目諸法，非定別體；第六轉故；如色、心之體，識之了別等。不遮諸法有別體者，然遮生等，定別有法，決定相違。外人救云：其能相體，非即所相，說能、所相故，如煙表火等。大士相等為例亦爾，即能、所相定各有異，故知生等與法定別。

The Commentary states: The first is the objection that the genitive case does not imply difference, refuting the cited expression using the genitive case. They formulate an inference: 'The expression "characteristics of the conditioned" has a separate substance; because of having the genitive case expression; like Devadatta's robe, Yajñadatta's bowl, etc.' Now an inconclusive fallacy is raised against it. Furthermore, as worldly convention speaks of 'the substance of form and mind', it does not have a separate substance apart from form and mind; turning this back to establish production and so forth, they likewise have no separate substance apart from the phenomenon. That is, formulating the inference: 'The phenomena denoted by the genitive case expression do not definitively have a separate substance; because of being in the genitive case; like the substance of form and mind, the discrimination of consciousness, etc.' This does not deny that phenomena have separate substances, but it denies that production and so forth definitively have separate entities, resulting in a decisive contradiction. The opponent saves their position: 'The entity of that which characterizes is not identical to that which is characterized, because they are spoken of as characterizing and characterized; like smoke indicating fire, etc. The marks of a Great Man are likewise analogous.' That is, the characterizing and the characterized are definitively distinct from each other; therefore we know that production and so forth are definitively distinct from the phenomena.