瑜伽師地論略纂 4.160

4.160

六、然似停住運動相現，非如正量部等一期生滅。　「依苦義者」，諸有漏法性恒行苦，一味無異相，似有苦有樂等時，實無其樂，無苦間斷等故。　「依空義者」，因性離於勝論我作者，果性離於數論我受諸苦者，然似不離。　「依無我義者」，離我體相，空離我用，是二差別。《緣起經》下卷說：謂於苦諦離實我性，名空；謂於苦諦非我相性，名無我。《對法》第六說亦同經，所望有差，不相違也。又此空義離作、受我體，無我義法體非我相，亦與彼同。此言無有我相者，無之言非故。　「依勝義諦」，緣起自性不可言說，今說緣起，故成第十。　依《對法論》有五甚深，謂因甚深等，與此不同。《緣起》下卷說十五種甚深，初五與《對法》同，後十稍別。如彼經論說。　三、「法住智」，是聞慧。　「真實智」謂思、修，異生如學而觀深義。　或法住智，異生聞慧；真實智，聖者三慧。　或法住智，異性身智；真實智，聖者身智，住教等法故，如實義而知故。是二差別。　四、「住」者，以無倒文句說此法性，能詮文句名為法住，故此法住以法性為因，故此法性名為法界。界是因義。或此文及《般若》等經說彼真如名為法住，所詮從教，名為法住。法住體故，要有法性，方為教依，以體為因，以義名果。五、「生若無者」，謂種子生，識等五支是。「無處無住，生可是有」者，謂現行生。六、「識於現法中用名色為緣故」者，識於生位，假名色起故、用為緣故。於後法中用識為緣故者，當名色生，必依識起。此說當現更互為緣，影顯現在名色依識，當來識起亦依名色。「所以者何」下，故自徵釋更互為緣。

Sixth, yet it appears as a semblance of abiding and movement, unlike the Sammītīyas and others who assert arising and ceasing across an entire lifespan. Regarding "based on the meaning of suffering": the nature of all contaminated dharmas is perpetually suffering of conditioning (saṃskāra-duḥkhatā), of a single flavor without different marks; when there seems to be suffering or pleasure, there is in truth no pleasure, because suffering has no cessation or interruption. Regarding "based on the meaning of emptiness": the nature of the cause is devoid of the Vaiśeṣika self as agent, and the nature of the fruit is devoid of the Sāṃkhya self as experiencer of various sufferings, yet it appears as though it were not devoid of them. Regarding "based on the meaning of non-self": it is devoid of the substantial mark of a self, while emptiness is devoid of the function of a self; such is the difference between the two. The lower fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says: being devoid of a real self-nature with respect to the truth of suffering is called 'emptiness'; being devoid of the nature of the mark of a self with respect to the truth of suffering is called 'non-self'. The sixth fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] speaks identically to the sūtra; since the points of reference differ, there is no contradiction. Furthermore, this meaning of emptiness is devoid of the substance of an agent or experiencer self, and the meaning of non-self is that the entity of dharmas is not the mark of a self, which is also identical to that. The phrase 'having no mark of a self' means that 'no' signifies 'not being'. Regarding "based on ultimate truth": the intrinsic nature of dependent origination is inexpressible; now dependent origination is expressed, and hence it constitutes the tenth. According to the Abhidharma[-samuccaya]-śāstra, there are five profundities, namely the profundity of cause and so forth, which differs from this. The lower fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda[-sūtra] speaks of fifteen kinds of profundity; the first five are identical to the Abhidharma, while the remaining ten are slightly different, as explained in that sūtra and treatise. Third, "knowledge of the stability of dharmas" (dharma-sthiti-jñāna) is the wisdom of hearing. "Knowledge of reality" refers to reflection and cultivation, whereby ordinary beings observe profound meaning like trainees. Or, knowledge of the stability of dharmas is the hearing wisdom of ordinary beings, while knowledge of reality is the three wisdoms of noble beings. Or, knowledge of the stability of dharmas is knowledge belonging to the continuum of ordinary beings, while knowledge of reality is knowledge belonging to the continuum of noble beings, because the former abides in dharmas such as the teachings, while the latter knows according to true reality; such is the distinction between the two. Fourth, regarding "stability": expressing this reality of dharmas with non-erroneous words and phrases, the expressing words and phrases are called 'stability of dharmas'; thus this stability of dharmas takes the reality of dharmas as its cause, and therefore this reality of dharmas is called the realm of dharmas (dharmadhātu). 'Realm' (dhātu) means cause. Alternatively, this text as well as sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā state that suchness is called 'stability of dharmas', taking its name from the teaching that expresses it as 'stability of dharmas'. Because it is the substance of the stability of dharmas, there must be the reality of dharmas before it can serve as the basis of teaching; the substance serves as the cause, and the meaning is designated as the fruit. Fifth, regarding "if birth does not exist": this refers to the birth of seeds, namely the five constituents beginning with consciousness. Regarding "there being no place and no abiding, birth may exist": this refers to the birth of active manifestations. Sixth, regarding "consciousness in the present life takes name-and-form as condition": at the time of arising, consciousness arises dependent on name-and-form and takes it as a condition. Regarding "in future life taking consciousness as condition": when future name-and-form arises, it must arise dependent on consciousness. This states that the future and present mutually serve as conditions, implicitly indicating that present name-and-form depends on consciousness, and future consciousness in arising also depends on name-and-form. From "For what reason?" downward, it accordingly raises the question and explains mutual conditionality.