成唯識論演祕 2.297

2.297

詳曰：依觀《疏》中重疊簡略誠無過矣，何枉剩焉？故疏簡云：此中餘言，顯色、心等所不攝也。既云色、心之所不攝，豈不遮彼隨一過耶？又《疏》復云：不言許者，隨一不成，此乃顯得他雖實攝，明自許得實法不攝，故置許言。許言有二：一許色、心實法不攝，自他皆許，敵者許得亦非色、心；二許但是實法不攝，唯自宗許。許言寬狹，簡過乃窮，《疏》何非理？

Examination: Observing the layered qualifications and abbreviations in the Commentary, there is truly no error; why make superfluous criticisms? Hence the Commentary qualifies: 'The word "other" here shows that they are not subsumed under form, mind, and so forth.' Since it says they are not subsumed under form and mind, does that not eliminate the fallacy of unestablished for one party (anyatarāsiddha)? Moreover, the Commentary further states: 'If one does not say "it being accepted", it is unestablished for one party.' This shows that although the other party considers acquisition to be subsumed under the real, to clarify that one's own school accepts that acquisition is not subsumed under real dharmas, the word 'accepted' is placed. The word 'accepted' has two senses: first, accepting that it is not subsumed under the real dharmas of form and mind, which both oneself and the other accept, as the opponent accepts that acquisition is also not form or mind; second, accepting that it is simply not subsumed under real dharmas, which is accepted only by one's own school. The broad and narrow senses of 'accepted' exhaust the elimination of fallacies; how could the Commentary be unreasonable?