成唯識論演祕 1.773

1.773

詳曰：言別有者，別有其體；若爾，因有不定之過。為如同異實等不攝，有是別有體，為如無說實等不攝，有是無別體，故應依前。

An examination shows: Saying "exists separately" means having a separate entity; if so, the reason commits the fallacy of inconclusiveness. Is it like similarity-and-difference, which is not subsumed under substance and so forth, yet exists as a separate entity? Or is it like the non-predicable, which is not subsumed under substance and so forth, yet has no separate entity? Therefore, one should rely on the former.