成唯識論述記 1.156

1.156

述曰：依止依他相、見二分，施設遍計所執我、法二實分也。依起執故，若離於此依他二分，彼無所依，故說依他為執依止，染分依故。此世間我、法，聖教我、法，義依於體，亦復如是。此顯我、法，假說所由。上來總是護法解訖。安惠解云：變謂識體轉似二分，二分體無，遍計所執，除佛以外，菩薩已還，諸識自體即自證分，由不證實，有法執故，似二分起，即計所執。似依他有，二分體無，如自證分，相貌亦有。以無似有，即三性心皆有法執。八識自體皆似二分，如依手巾變似於兔，幻生二耳。二耳體無，依手巾起，彼引世親所造《緣起論》中末後決擇，說無明支許通三性，故除如來皆有二分，是計所執。

The Commentary states: In dependence on the dependent objective and subjective divisions, the two real divisions of imagined self and phenomena are conventionally posited. It is because grasping arises depending on them; if apart from these two dependent divisions, they would have nothing to depend on, and therefore the dependent nature is said to be the support for grasping, because it is the support for the defiled part. As with this mundane self and phenomena and the sacred self and phenomena, meaning depending on substance is also like this. This shows the reason why self and phenomena are conventionally designated. All of the above is the explanation of Dharmapāla. Sthiramati explains: 'Transformation' means that the substance of consciousness turns into a resemblance of the two divisions, but the two divisions are devoid of substance and are purely imagined. Except for the Buddha, for all from the bodhisattvas on down, the substance of the consciousnesses, which is the self-verifying division, because of not realizing the real and possessing attachment to phenomena (dharmagrāha), arises resembling the two divisions, which are imagined. They appear to exist as dependent, but the two divisions are devoid of substance; like the self-verifying division, their appearance also exists. Taking non-existence as resembling existence, the minds of all three natures possess attachment to phenomena. The substances of the eight consciousnesses all resemble the two divisions, just like transforming a handkerchief to resemble a rabbit, magically producing two ears: the two ears are devoid of substance, arising depending on the handkerchief. He cites the concluding determination in the Pratītyasamutpāda-śāstra composed by Vasubandhu, which states that the branch of ignorance is accepted as pervading the three natures; therefore, except for the Tathāgata, all have the two divisions, which are imagined.