成唯識論述記 5.277

5.277

述曰：下第二師重釋「餘」字，初總解；後別諍。此即總釋。頌中「餘」字義實不然，何以知者？頌說此五有覆攝故，即知「餘」字不簡前性。若言「餘」字簡前性者，此言有覆明自體，明自體時足簡前故，何須別簡！此破前師第二解也。汝第一解言，即四之餘謂觸等五。若頌但言「及觸等俱」，誰不知觸等是四之餘。更說「餘」字，故知但是觸等餘也。若不爾者，闕此意俱隨煩惱故。何以知者？返覆徵難，理無逃處，故知「餘」字目隨煩惱。何以如此？煩惱必與隨煩惱俱故。此「餘」言，定顯隨煩惱。

The Commentary states: Below, the second master re-explains the word 'other': first an overall explanation, then distinct disputations. This is the overall explanation. The meaning of the word 'other' in the stanza is truly not like that; how is this known? The stanza states that these five are subsumed under the defiled-neutral (nivṛtāvyākṛta); thus one knows that the word 'other' does not preclude the preceding nature. If one says that the word 'other' precludes the preceding nature, the phrase 'defiled-neutral' clarifies its own nature; when clarifying its own nature, it already sufficiently precludes the preceding, so why would a separate preclusion be needed! This refutes the former master's second explanation. Your first explanation said that it refers to what is other than the four, namely the five such as contact. If the stanza merely said 'and associated with contact and so forth', who would not know that contact and so forth are other than the four? Since it further states the word 'other', we know it is simply what is other than contact and so forth. If that were not so, this mind would lack the associated secondary afflictions. How is this known? Through examining and challenging it back and forth, reason finds no escape; therefore we know that the word 'other' refers to secondary afflictions. Why is this so? Because afflictions are necessarily accompanied by secondary afflictions. This word 'other' definitively indicates secondary afflictions.