成唯識論演祕 7.78

7.78

詳曰：《疏》無文判定依因明、不依《佛地》。然言觀心共相無體；且釋論說空、無我二，苦、無常二。《論》等等之，故疏不釋，隨論省略。非不許彼亦是所簡，通簡《經》、《論》所說共相。若言唯簡《經》說共相，《論》說共相何意不簡？豈《論》共相非所簡耶？若非所簡，「常」簡共相有不盡失。故《疏》無違，有義不足。

Detailed analysis says: The Commentary contains no text determining that it relies on Hetuvidyā and does not rely on the Buddhabhūmi. Yet it states that the common characteristic grasped by the mind lacks real essence; and moreover the commentary on the treatise speaks of the two of emptiness and selflessness, and the two of suffering and impermanence. The Treatise uses "and so forth" to include them; thus the Commentary does not explain them, following the treatise's abbreviation. It is not that it does not accept that they are also excluded; it universally excludes the common characteristics explained in both the sūtras and the treatises. If one says that it only excludes the common characteristics explained in the sūtras, why would it not exclude the common characteristics explained in the treatises? Could the common characteristics of the treatises not be among those excluded? If they were not excluded, "permanent" would have the fault of not completely excluding common characteristics. Therefore the Commentary is not contradictory, and the other interpretation is deficient.