因明入正理論疏 3.164

3.164

有說：共相亦是有體假。此實不然。以何為體？若有體者，百法何收？答：「言法同分攝，許不相應，是有體假。」此亦不然，謂誰言不相應是有體假？《瑜伽》五十二云：「緣去來生滅等，是緣無體識。」若許有體，不證緣無。

Some say: The sāmānyalakṣaṇa is also a conventional entity that has substantial reality. This is truly not so. What would constitute its entity? If it had an entity, under which of the hundred dharmas would it be subsumed? They answer: "It is subsumed under dharma-sabhāgatā; being accepted as a conditioned factor unassociated with mind (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), it is a conventional entity that has substantial reality." This too is not so: who says that unassociated factors are conventional entities that have substantial reality? Fascicle 52 of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Cognizing past, future, arising, ceasing, and the like is a consciousness that cognizes what lacks substantial entity." If one admits it has substantial entity, it would not corroborate the cognition of what lacks substantial entity.