成唯識論演祕 5.645

5.645

詳曰：觀《疏》染、淨前後二因，實無過矣，且前有法不言思惠，直云睡眠，可如所責。前既標云染思惠已，後因牒彼，何有過乎？又若後因全取有法，可違理門。今者有法與因增減，全有不同，何有違論？若如所立染、非染因，乃非論意，如《疏》所明，理通文順。又睡及眠，皆有染、淨，染、淨別開，便成四量，《疏》合言二。

In detailed evaluation: Examining the two reasons of defilement and purification before and after in the Commentary, there is genuinely no fault. If the former subject of the proposition had not mentioned volition and discernment, and had simply said 'drowsiness,' it could be faulted as alleged. But since it previously specified 'defiled volition and discernment,' and the subsequent reason takes that up, what fault is there? Furthermore, only if the subsequent reason took the subject of the proposition in its entirety could it contravene the Nyāyamukha. Now, the subject and the reason differ completely in extension; how could it contravene the treatise? If one were to formulate it as 'the reason of being defiled or not defiled' as proposed, that would not be the treatise's intent; as clarified in the Commentary, the reasoning is sound and the text flows smoothly. Furthermore, both torpor and drowsiness possess defilement and purification; separating defilement and purification would result in four syllogisms, which the Commentary combines into two.