成唯識論述記 8.147

8.147

述曰：自下立理，若不如前解者，各有太寬、太狹之失。且如習氣唯目第三，即第三中有非業者，亦得異熟果便為太寬，餘四依處有業種不得，即太狹也。隨順處言，唯目第十一，彼自依處中，亦引涅槃及非同類異界、無漏等法故，非等流果，故太寬失。餘或六、或八、或七依處中，亦有不攝即太狹失。真見處言唯目第十，亦為太寬，自處亦攝俱時，及後同類諸法非離繫果故。餘四處中，亦得離繫，既為不說，即太狹也。士用處言唯目第九，即自依處中，亦引增上、等流果等，若攝彼盡，即太寬失。餘或四、或十處亦得此果，若不攝者亦太狹失。餘依處中，亦有太寬，即前四外餘依處中，有等流等四果體在，若並是別增上果者，即為太寬。唯除前四所攝之外為所餘者，前依處中亦有增上果，如習氣中不得異熟果者，即諸因緣種；隨順中不得等流者，即得涅槃。真見亦有不得離繫者，引後自類等；領受中亦有不得士用者，如脛待足等，若不攝彼便為太狹。故知於我所說為正，或此增上唯應難狹，餘四依處得餘果故。然此寬狹，一准於前得果依處頭數說故也。

The Commentary states: Next it establishes the reasoning: if not explained as before, each would commit the fault of being either too broad or too narrow. For instance, if 'vāsanā' designates solely the third [basis], then among the third there are those that are not karma, which would also obtain the fruit of maturation, becoming too broad; and among the other four bases there are karmic seeds that would not obtain it, becoming too narrow. If the words 'basis of conformity' designate solely the eleventh, then within its own basis, it also induces nirvāṇa and dharmas of non-identical categories in different realms, anāsrava, and so forth; because they are not fruits of uniform outflow, there is the fault of being too broad. In the other six, eight, or seven bases, there are also those not subsumed, resulting in the fault of being too narrow. If the words 'basis of true view' designate solely the tenth, it is also too broad, for its own basis also subsumes simultaneous and subsequent dharmas of the same category that are not fruits of disconnection. Since the other four bases also obtain disconnection, not stating them makes it too narrow. If the words 'basis of virile activity' designate solely the ninth, then within its own basis, it also induces sovereign fruits, fruits of uniform outflow, and so forth; if it completely subsumes them, there is the fault of being too broad. The other four or ten bases also obtain this fruit; if they are not subsumed, it is also too narrow. Among the remaining bases, there is also the fault of being too broad: within the bases other than the preceding four, the essences of the four fruits such as uniform outflow are present; if all are distinctly sovereign fruits, it would be too broad. If solely what is excluded from the subsumption of the preceding four is taken as the remainder, then in the preceding bases there are also sovereign fruits: such as those in vāsanā that do not obtain the fruit of maturation, which are the seeds of hetupratyaya; those in conformity that do not obtain uniform outflow, which obtain nirvāṇa; in true view there are also those that do not obtain disconnection, which induce subsequent [dharmas] of their own category and so forth; in experiencing there are also those that do not obtain virile activity, such as the shin depending on the foot and so forth—if they are not subsumed, it would be too narrow. Therefore we know that what I have stated is correct. Alternatively, this sovereign [fruit] should solely be challenged for being too narrow, because the other four bases obtain other fruits. However, this broadness and narrowness is stated solely in accordance with the number of bases obtaining fruits previously mentioned.