成唯識論了義燈 3.63

3.63

《論》：若有漏心性是無漏等。量云汝無漏心，應有餘相違性；以漏無漏心隨一攝故；如有漏心性。若言無漏心性是有漏；漏無漏中，隨一攝故；猶如有漏心者。此同喻中，無所立過。以有漏心性非有漏故。若云取染心性以為同喻，即因有不定。為如染心性是有漏，為如淨心性是無漏。

Regarding the treatise statement: "If the nature of contaminated mind were uncontaminated, and so forth": the syllogism runs: 'Your uncontaminated mind should possess another contradictory nature; because it is subsumed under either contaminated or uncontaminated mind; like the nature of contaminated mind.' If one were to argue: 'The nature of uncontaminated mind is contaminated; because it is subsumed under either contaminated or uncontaminated; just like contaminated mind,' then in this homologous example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta), there would be the fallacy of lacking the probandum (sādhyavikala), because the nature of contaminated mind is not contaminated. If one says that one takes the nature of defiled mind as the homologous example, then the reason becomes inconclusive: is it like the nature of defiled mind being contaminated, or is it like the nature of pure mind being uncontaminated?