成唯識論述記 2.366

2.366

述曰：第二、能、所不異難，表火之相能、所別；例生等相能、所殊；地等堅等，能、所一。例生等相無別體；地堅為相，乃至風動為相，雖有之言及能、所義，然非體別；生等應然。然就極成，便無實大士，以眾同分大乘、經部皆不許故。若就他義，大士亦成，薩婆多等。今依自宗引大士相有體為例，若依共許，彼例不成。故《俱舍》中返以為難云：非大士相異於大士等，此中比量返覆可知，然為他因，作不定過。此中遮定第六轉言有別自性，非遮一切。外人復曰：若能、所相體是一者，何故經言有為之相？

The Commentary states: The second is the objection that the characterizing and the characterized are not different. The sign indicating fire has a difference between the characterizing and the characterized; analogizing the characteristics of production and so forth, the characterizing and the characterized are distinct. But solidity of earth and so forth have identity between the characterizing and the characterized; analogizing the characteristics of production and so forth, they have no separate substance. Earth having solidity as its characteristic, and even wind having motion as its characteristic: although there is the word 'of' and the meaning of characterizing and characterized, yet their substances are not distinct; production and so forth should be likewise. However, strictly speaking in terms of established fact, there is no substantial Great Man, because the Mahāyāna and Sautrāntika both reject nikāya-sabhāga. If speaking in terms of the other's doctrine, the Great Man is also established, as in the Sarvāstivāda and others. Now, relying on our own school, we cite the marks of the Great Man as having substance to serve as an example; if relying on what is mutually accepted, their example cannot be established. Therefore in the Abhidharmakośa, it is turned back into an objection saying: 'The marks of a Great Man are not different from the Great Man,' etc. The inferences here can be understood by their back-and-forth application, but for the other's reason, it produces an inconclusive fallacy. Here, it negates that the genitive case expression definitively has a separate intrinsic nature, not negating all of them. The opponent speaks again: 'If the entities of the characterizing and characterized are one, why does the sūtra speak of the characteristics of the conditioned?'