成唯識論演祕 2.470

2.470

Answer: The intention of the metaphor is to establish what was stated earlier—that there is a dharma capable of causing the mind and mental factors to cease—revealing that apart from what is blocked, there is an agent that blocks, without establishing [it as] substantially real. If it were not so, both the Sarvāstivāda and the Sautrāntika accept that dikes and the like are not substantially real; if it were used as an example of what is real, would the metaphor not incur the fallacy that the probandum is unestablished in both [systems]? It was to avoid this fallacy that it was not established as substantially real; thus the author of the Commentary thoroughly grasped their intended meaning. Another opinion says: The words 'like an embankment' incur the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika) against the opponent's inference. That is, the opponent's inference says: 'The two mindless absorptions and the non-conception maturation are definitely substantially real; because they are capable of blocking; just like the formless absorption.' Showing the fallacy against this, one asks: 'Is it, like the formless absorption, substantially real because it is capable of blocking? Or is it, like an embankment, not substantially real because it is capable of blocking?'