成唯識論了義燈 3.7

3.7

《論》：所相恒有而生等合者。問：此破與前理有何別？答：前以彼宗不離無為，別立能相。例破有為，不令別立。今以有為體恒有，說生等合。例彼無為，體亦恒有，應生等合，故二文別。云：《俱舍》云：即前異不成，異前非一法，若所異之法，即前住所住者，異義不成。非前所住，是別法者，即非一法。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "The entity that possesses the characteristics constantly exists, yet birth and the others combine with it": Question: What difference in reasoning is there between this refutation and the previous one? Answer: Previously, because their school does not establish distinct characterizing marks apart from the unconditioned, we analogously refuted the conditioned, not allowing them to establish them separately. Now, because they hold that the substance of the conditioned constantly exists, and say that birth and the others combine with it, we analogously argue that since the substance of the unconditioned likewise constantly exists, birth and the others should also combine with it. Therefore, the two passages are different. The Kośa says: If it is identical to the preceding, difference is not established; if it is different from the preceding, it is not a single dharma. If the differentiated dharma is just that which previously abided by duration, the meaning of difference is not established. If it is not what previously abided, but a distinct dharma, then it is not a single dharma.