成唯識論述記 7.35

7.35

述曰：此下第三，文有其四。有義：不然。《對法》及五十五、五十八皆言通三性故，何故染、淨即依別數？其無記者，無別依法，而依總立。又無記之性，非癡、無癡，故應別有。

The Commentary states: From here down is the third [opinion], whose text has four parts. 'Some say: It is not so': because the Abhidharma-samuccaya as well as fascicles 55 and 58 all state that they pervade the three natures, why should the defiled and pure be based on separate individual factors, while the indeterminate is not based on a separate factor but is established on the aggregate? Furthermore, the nature of the indeterminate is neither delusion nor non-delusion, and therefore they must separately exist.