成唯識論述記 4.369

4.369

述曰：前不齊解。設復任汝識間轉如煖，汝宗六識為此中識，應不通三性及與無漏，如壽與煖故。論無三性准例應成，故云：又三法中乃至定非無漏。此亦不然，如壽能持煖非是壽，以能持故，壽應非壽。彼既不然，此云何爾？是故何得以識能持故，令如壽、及煖。非通三性，及非無漏。此意不然，謂無漏法不持有漏故。識如壽、煖唯有漏有持，豈得言三性有壽非壽等？為例成失，一切難中俱有此例，又此中文第二別難。

The Commentary states: The former is an asymmetric explanation. Even if we grant you that consciousness has interruption and changing like warmth, the six consciousnesses of your tradition, serving as the consciousness herein, should not extend to the three natures and undefiledness, because they would be like life and warmth. The treatise lacks the three natures, but according to the parallel it should be established; thus it says: "Furthermore, among the three dharmas... definitely not undefiled." This also is not so: for example, life can sustain warmth, but it is not warmth; if because it is capable of sustaining, life should be non-life. Since that is not so, how could this be so? Therefore, how could one, because consciousness is capable of sustaining, make it be like life and warmth, not extending to the three natures and not being undefiled? This intention is incorrect, for undefiled dharmas do not sustain defiled ones. Consciousness, like life and warmth, is solely defiled and has sustaining; how could one say that the three natures have life, non-life, and so forth? Paralleling it becomes a fallacy; in all objections this parallel is present. Furthermore, this text is the second, a distinct objection.