成唯識論述記 2.375

2.375

述曰：此論主難，彼若救言：體不相違，故得俱起；用相違故，不得並者。即應難云：以體同，用亦應相違；體不離用故；如用。以用從體，用應不違；不離體故；如體。此上，古薩婆多師四相用違，前後別起，故為此難。正理論師為救此義，復別解云：三相用俱一時，所望別故。住引等流果，異衰其力，令後果弱不及前法，其滅可知。子段第三、新宗背古難，論主非之。

The Commentary states: This is the objection by the author of the treatise. If they rescue by saying: 'Their substances are not mutually opposed, and so can arise together; but because their functions are mutually opposed, they cannot occur together,' then one should object: Since they are identical in substance, their functions should also be mutually opposed, because substance is not separate from function, like function. If one follows substance from function, their functions should not be mutually opposed, because they are not separate from substance, like substance. In the above, the ancient Sarvāstivāda masters held that the functions of the four marks are mutually opposed and arise separately in sequence; hence this objection is made. To rescue this point, the Nyāyānusāra masters offer yet another explanation: 'The functions of the three marks are simultaneous, because what they regard is different. Abiding brings forth the causally concordant result (niṣyanda-phala); decay weakens its power, causing the later result to be weaker and not equal to the preceding phenomenon; and destruction can be known.' The third sub-clause is the objection that the new school goes against the ancients; the author of the treatise rejects it.