成唯識論述記 4.59

4.59

[The Commentary states:] This is the third view: because both factors are subsumed under the category of cessation. The intention here is to say that not only is the path return and nirvāṇa cessation, but the path is that which can return, and nirvāṇa is that which is returned to, hence nirvāṇa is also subsumed under the category of return. Cessation is the substance of cessation, and the path also conforms to it in severing defiled factors; because it can conform to cessation, it is also said to be subsumed under the category of cessation. Both the path and nirvāṇa may be called return, and both may be called cessation; hence it says both are subsumed under the category of return and cessation. They are subsumed under that category, but are not its substance. How is it known that both are spoken of here?