金光明最勝王經疏 3.33

3.33

贊曰：展轉釋也。智如二種不一不異。何以故？如是智境、智是有為，故不一。然智託境生，如是智性故不異。如若異智，不是彼性，如破勝論，地性應非他性，以異地故，如水火等故。此亦然，故《成唯識》第八云「故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性。」

The commentary says: This is the progressive explanation. The two kinds—wisdom and suchness—are neither one nor different. Why? Because suchness is the cognitive object of wisdom, and wisdom is conditioned; therefore they are not one. However, wisdom arises relying on its object, and suchness is the nature of wisdom; therefore they are not different. If suchness were different from wisdom, it would not be its nature—just as in refuting the Vaiśeṣikas, the nature of earth should not be the nature of another, because it is different from earth, like water, fire, and so forth. This is likewise so. Therefore the eighth fascicle of the Cheng weishi [lun] says: "Therefore this and other-dependent nature are neither different nor non-different, like the nature of impermanence and so forth."