成唯識論演祕 3.959

3.959

詳曰：觀論本、釋，量無明文，所以疏主斷前二因但直責也，古德以彼命根為喻而立其量，量如前辨。喻既論無，不假為量。又自第八亦不得成，他量破云：初生時識，非是第八；依染污故；猶如命根。彼此既同，何能遣過？由此故知直責為善。或可作量論示方隅，略不言喻。我宗命根不定異八，汝命根喻所立不成。由斯作量，理亦應通，義既多途，任情取捨，時無斷因亦可以彼命根為喻。

Examined closely: observing the root treatise and its commentary, there is no explicit formulation of a syllogism; therefore, the author of the Commentary simply addressed direct reproaches to the first two reasons. Masters of old used the life-faculty as an example to formulate the syllogism, as identified earlier. Since the example is absent from the treatise, there is no need to formulate a formal inference. Furthermore, one's own eighth consciousness would also fail to be established, as the opponent's syllogism could refute it: 'The consciousness at the initial moment of birth is not the eighth consciousness; because it relies on defilement; like the life-faculty.' Since both sides would be alike, how could the fault be dispelled? Therefore, we know that a direct reproach is best. Alternatively, a syllogism might be constructed to indicate the general direction while omitting the example. In our school the life-faculty is not definitely distinct from the eighth consciousness, so your example of the life-faculty fails in what it is set up to prove. Thus, if a syllogism is constructed, it should also be logically coherent. Since the meaning allows multiple avenues, one may accept or reject according to inclination. The reason of 'uninterrupted in time' may likewise take that life-faculty as an example.