成唯識論演祕 5.280

5.280

詳曰：此望《疏》談，隨顯少差，義無越也。而《疏》意云：由此師引六位為證，恐惑者云此師許彼決定等位；但一信等故，云此師而皆許俱也，即顯六位一一容與餘所等並，名皆許也。非說十一俱起名「皆」。九、八、七俱理准可悉，故不縷言，故亦無咎。有云：《疏》主許十一俱，此乖本旨。豈可《疏》主不解前師慚等，不並言十一俱。

In detailed appraisal: When assessed against what the Commentary explains, a minor discrepancy is shown, but the meaning is not transgressed. The Commentary's intention is: because this master cites the six states as proof, fearing that confused persons might say that this master allows only a single faith or the like in those states of determination and so forth, it therefore says that this master allows them "all" to be concomitant, which shows that each and every one of the six states is permitted to be parallel with the remaining mental factors—this is what is called "allowing all." It does not mean that the simultaneous arising of the eleven is called "all." The concomitant arising of nine, eight, or seven can be understood by analogy, and therefore is not expounded in detail; thus there is no fault. Some say: "The author of the Commentary allows the simultaneous arising of eleven"; this contradicts the original intention. How could the author of the Commentary not understand that the former master held that moral shame and the rest do not occur together, and [yet] assert that eleven arise concomitantly?