成唯識論演祕 3.478

3.478

疏有兩釋，後解易知。初解之中，言許實故，簡於喻上所立之過，經部麁色說皆假故，故第二因亦無失矣。有義：其第二因若總三食為同喻者，所立不成。假食三塵是假有故，別以識、思二為同喻，因成不定。疏何故說假食實有？

The Commentary has two explanations; the latter explanation is easy to understand. In the first explanation, the words 'because it is admitted to be real' exclude the fault of [lacking the property] to be proved in the example, for the Sautrāntikas state that coarse form is completely conventional; therefore, the second reason also has no fault. An opinion holds: 'If the second reason takes the three nutriments collectively as the positive example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta), the property to be proved is not established, because conventional nutriment (the three dusts/sense objects) is conventionally existent. If consciousness and volition are taken separately as the two positive examples, the reason becomes inconclusive. Why then does the Commentary state that conventional nutriment is really existent?'