成唯識論演祕 6.521

6.521

詳曰：別總既異，性何必同？若以別性例總性同，應以別體例於總體體令各等；體既不齊，性何令等？又《大論》第九名色三性，此第二釋，那知不依彼義而談。不爾，何須分為二釋？以此而言，《疏》固無失。

Examination: Since the separate and the collective are distinct, why must their natures be identical? If by the separate natures one assimilates the collective nature to be identical, one would also have to assimilate the collective essence by the separate essences so that the essences are respectively equal; but since their essences are not uniform, why require their natures to be equal? Moreover, fascicle 9 of the Yogācārabhūmi states that name-and-form has the three natures; how do we know that this second explanation is not spoken relying on that meaning? If not, why would it be divided into two explanations? Speaking from this perspective, the Commentary certainly has no error.