瑜伽論記 19.478

19.478

言不取識為分別識性識所變異無我等塵無而似有為分別性者，雖有色等事法據唯識門并名為識，故云不取識為分別也取識所變無我等塵無而似有為分別者，即是無我計我，無定實法執有定法，還是情有名為遍計。言染境名遍計所執者，所執無體能生染心，故名為染，非謂有其染法為所依體，既知如此。次依新譯經論出三性體，一、就五法；二、就五相。言五法者，即是相名分別如如正智，於此五中初自性五法不攝，第二自性攝於四法，第三自性唯攝如如，此如七十四卷初說，與舊經論同異會釋，至彼當釋，次依五相出三性體。言五相者，如下攝釋分說：一、所言相；二、能言相；三、能言所言相應相；四、執著相；五、不執著，所言相中通有五法，即攝依他及圓成實，能言相中據橫執名無體，義同攝第一性，能言所言相應相，定執名義攝屬攝第一性，執著相攝依他者，是分別心故屬依他，不執著相攝圓成實，通有如如正智為體。

Regarding the statement that one does not take consciousness as the nature of discrimination, but rather takes that which consciousness transforms into—objects such as a non-existent self which are non-existent yet appear to exist—as the nature of discrimination: Although actual things such as form exist, in terms of the consciousness-only approach they are all termed 'consciousness'; hence it says that one does not take consciousness as discrimination. When it says that taking that which consciousness transforms into—objects such as a non-existent self that are non-existent yet appear to exist—is discrimination, this means falsely conceptualising a self where there is no self, or grasping fixed phenomena where there are no fixed, real phenomena. This is still what exists only in imagination being termed 'parikalpita'. As for the statement that defiled objects are termed 'parikalpita', that which is grasped lacks an intrinsic substance, yet is able to produce defiled mental states, and for this reason is termed 'defiled'; it does not mean there are actual defiled phenomena that serve as the underlying substance. Since this is known, next, according to newly translated scriptures and treatises, the substances of the three natures are established: first, with respect to the five dharmas; second, with respect to the five marks. As for the five dharmas, they are marks, names, discrimination, suchness, and correct wisdom. Among these five, the first nature is not subsumed under the five dharmas; the second nature subsumes four dharmas; the third nature subsumes only suchness. This is as explained at the beginning of fascicle 74, where the similarities and differences with older scriptures and treatises are harmonised and explained; that will be explained when we reach that point. Next, the substances of the three natures are established according to the five marks. As for the five marks, as explained below in the Vyākhyānasaṃgrahaṇī: 1. the mark of that which is spoken of; 2. the mark of that which speaks; 3. the mark of the conjunction of that which speaks and that which is spoken of; 4. the mark of adherence; 5. non-adherence. Within the mark of that which is spoken of, it generally contains the five dharmas, subsuming paratantra and pariniṣpanna. Within the mark of that which speaks, in terms of arbitrary grasping at names that lack substance, in meaning it likewise subsumes the first nature. As for the mark of the conjunction of that which speaks and that which is spoken of, definitely grasping names and referents as mutually subsumed belongs to and subsumes the first nature. The mark of adherence subsumes paratantra, because being the discriminating mind, it belongs to paratantra. The mark of non-adherence subsumes pariniṣpanna, having both suchness and correct wisdom as its substance.