成唯識論演祕 2.31

2.31

Answer: There are briefly three explanations. First, against the Sarvāstivādins, the five faculties, objects, and so on are subsumed into the proposition (pakṣa), so there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika); if against the Sautrāntikas, there would be the fault of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana), because for the Sautrāntikas the faculties and so forth are all nominal. Although it is to refute the constituting [atoms], in order to preclude inconclusiveness, it also refutes the faculties and so on, which is also without fault. Second, against the Sautrāntikas, the five faculties, objects, and so on are subsumed into the positive example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta), because the intention of the treatise is solely to refute the constituting atoms. Third, it refutes both schools simultaneously, but by formulating distinct inferences; if one were to refute both schools with a single inference, there would be errors whether advancing or retreating, as can be known on reflection. The third explanation is complete, while the former two are logically viable.