成唯識論述記 3.401

3.401

述曰：應非遍行故，破《正理》師；應不異定故，破《雜集論》師。已如前說，由《雜集》師不解《集論》，約此行相以為真理，故今破之。然救初云，且約新起，異緣勝說，非非遍行。救第二云，據修中行定，勝作意說，故與定別，此亦不然，義不具故。既說行相應盡理明，理既不周，故如論破與薩婆多別，如《俱舍》第四。問：何故百法等，作意為初，此論中所明觸為先說？答：和合三法攝心心所，令同取境，是觸勝能。警心心所，令皆能起，作意勝力。此約和合，觸乃先明；彼論約警，作意初說。各據一門，不相違也。

The Commentary states: 'It would follow that it is not omnipresent' refutes the Nyāyānusāra master; 'it would follow that it is not different from concentration' refutes the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya master. It has already been explained as above. Because the master of the Samuccayavyākhyā did not understand the Abhidharmasamuccaya, he took this mode of activity as the ultimate truth, and is therefore refuted now. However, to rescue the first view, it is said that it is stated provisionally regarding newly arisen, prominent differences of conditions, not that it is non-omnipresent. To rescue the second view, it is said that it is stated based on concentration cultivated in practice as superior attention, and thus it differs from concentration. This too is incorrect, because the meaning is incomplete. Since the mode of activity is stated, it should be explained exhaustively; since the reasoning is not comprehensive, it is refuted as in the treatise. It differs from the Sarvāstivādin as in the fourth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa. Question: Why is it that in the Hundred Dharmas and elsewhere attention is placed first, while in this treatise contact is explained first? Answer: Bringing together the three factors and gathering the mind and mental factors so that they grasp the object together is the predominant capacity of contact. Alerting the mind and mental factors so that they can all arise is the predominant power of attention. This treatise explains contact first in terms of coming together; that treatise explains attention first in terms of alerting. Each is based on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other.