成唯識論演祕 3.908

3.908

詳曰：疏中但云破經，有部而無正言，此乃加言妄出過也。又設言正，理亦何爽？由經部師許色根等持種受熏故，色根等對彼名正，不言他許色根執受對之名正，有部准此。又言通遮亦為不可，不相應行持種之事二部無差，何假雙遮？無義而言，恐繁翰墨。

Critical assessment: In the Commentary, it merely says it refutes the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda without the word 'directly'; this is adding words and falsely imputing faults. Furthermore, even if it said 'directly', how would the principle be wrong? Because the Sautrāntika masters accept that physical faculties hold seeds and receive perfuming, [refuting] physical faculties is called 'direct' against them, without implying that the other asserts physical faculties appropriate; the Sarvāstivāda is understood accordingly. Furthermore, saying that it mutually negates is also inadmissible: the two schools do not differ regarding non-concurrent formations holding seeds, so why make a dual negation? Speaking without meaning, I fear, merely wastes ink.