瑜伽論記 19.256

19.256

四四依相攝門。補闕云：意取所依為四依，相三依所攝者，相中具有依法依了義經及以依義。若據相中有智亦有依智即具攝四依，此中意取所依謂依法等，名唯法依者。何故名中不攝依了義經？解云：兼取所了之義方是了義經，名是教法但是依法，如相分別亦爾者，以分別心是前三依之體故具三依，以是世間心法故無智依，若爾云何得法依？解云：法是教法是心相分攝，相從見故以分別以為法依，真如智所行故是義依，正智唯是智依，雖復是了義經，了義經是所了以無能了故，正智體非了義經依。

Fourth, the category of mutual subsumption of the four reliances. The Supplement says: Taking the object of reliance as the four reliances: signs are subsumed under three reliances; within signs there are reliance on the Dharma, reliance on sūtras of definitive meaning, and reliance on the meaning. If we take wisdom existing within signs, then there is also reliance on wisdom, thereby completely subsuming the four reliances. Here, taking the object of reliance, it refers to reliance on the Dharma and so forth. Why is name subsumed solely under reliance on the Dharma, and why is reliance on sūtras of definitive meaning not subsumed under name? The explanation says: only when one concurrently takes the meaning that is made definitive is it a sūtra of definitive meaning; name is teaching-phenomena and is merely reliance on the Dharma. As with signs, so too is discrimination: because the discriminative mind is the substance of the first three reliances, it possesses the three reliances; because it is worldly mental phenomena, it has no reliance on wisdom. If so, how does it obtain reliance on the Dharma? The explanation says: Dharma is teaching-phenomena and is subsumed under the objective aspect of the mind; the objective aspect follows the cognitive aspect, and so discrimination is taken as reliance on the Dharma. Tathatā, being the domain of wisdom, is reliance on the meaning. Correct wisdom is solely reliance on wisdom; although it is a sūtra of definitive meaning, the sūtra of definitive meaning is that which is comprehended, and because there is no comprehending agent [separate from it], the substance of correct wisdom is not reliance on sūtras of definitive meaning.