成唯識論演祕 4.621

4.621

詳曰：依義寬通，舉眼所以簡餘非者，斯亦何違？若言喻者，何假置彼必有之言？觀諸因明未見喻中有此例故。必有定義，宗有無失。下總量云：必有不共，顯自名處，是宗法也。又總是喻，更有何法是所簡者，將以為宗。若言意根即是所簡，文既不言，應是意許。若如是者，豈此宗法唯有意許，無言陳耶？又未曾見以喻所簡別法為宗，准此則應先舉於喻後方言宗，以喻簡彼宗法過故，以此而言知疏無謬。

In detailed consideration: The meaning of support is broad and pervasive; what contradiction is there in mentioning the eye to exclude other non-supports? If one says it is an example, why would it be necessary to insert the words 'must have'? Looking at all works on hetuvidyā, no such instance has been seen in an example. 'Must have' expresses a necessary rule; in the thesis (pakṣa), there is no error. The general inference below says: 'Must have an unshared [support]'—revealing its own term-locus, which is the property of the subject. Furthermore, if it is entirely an example, what further dharma is being differentiated to be taken as the thesis? If one says the mental faculty is what is differentiated, since the text does not say so, it would have to be an intended meaning. If it were so, could this property of the subject exist only as an intended meaning without being explicitly stated? Furthermore, one has never seen a dharma differentiated by an example taken as the thesis; following this, one should first bring up the example and only afterward state the thesis, using the example to exclude faults in that property of the subject. From this, one knows the Commentary is not in error.