成唯識論述記 6.299

6.299

述曰：又引論難。若此無癡以惠為性，如不害等，應非實物。不害以無嗔為性，此以惠為體故。若許無癡是假，便違《大論》五十五說：十一善中，不放逸、捨及不害三是世俗有，餘皆實有。由前一理二教，故別有體。若爾，《對法》文如何通？

The Commentary states: Furthermore, he cites a treatise to object: If this non-delusion took wisdom as its nature, like non-harming and the others, it should not be a real substance. Non-harming takes non-anger as its nature, and this would take wisdom as its entity. If one admits that non-delusion is nominal, this would contradict what fascicle 55 of the Great Treatise states: "Among the eleven wholesome [factors], three—vigilance, equanimity, and non-harming—are conventional existents; the rest are all real existents." Due to the preceding one reasoning and two scriptural teachings, it has a distinct entity. If so, how is the text of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* resolved?