成唯識論述記 5.250

5.250

述曰：此第二解。「餘」恐謂此中觸等五法，亦同於前異熟識俱者，亦是無覆無記性攝；顯此俱五性，異於彼相應五性，故置「餘」言。問：若爾，何故次後復說是有覆性？答：言「餘」者，為異前性；不知何性，復言有覆分別自體，為簡彼前性故置餘言。問：「餘」字既然，「及」字何用？

The Commentary states: This is the second explanation of "rest". It was feared that the five factors of contact and so forth here would also be regarded as identical to those concomitant with the vipākavijñāna mentioned previously, and would also be subsumed under the non-obscured indeterminate nature; to show that the nature of these five concomitant [factors] is different from the nature of those five associated [with the vipākavijñāna], the word "rest" is set down. Question: If so, why does it state immediately afterward that it is of an obscured nature? Answer: The word "rest" is used to differentiate it from the former nature; not knowing what nature it is, it further states "obscured" to distinguish its own essence; to distinguish it from the former nature, the word "rest" is set down. Question: If the word "rest" is like this, what is the function of the word "and" (ca / jí)?