成唯識論述記 1.193

1.193

述曰：此即第三，依諦攝假。謂心外境其體都無，依內妄情假名我、法，唯世俗者執有，勝義者說無。內因緣識相、見分等，假境所依依他性事，其世俗者說為非無，亦勝義者之所說有。此中色等，內識相分因緣所生，從本名識，此約內境如識有義，即下第十三分俱實。或緣過、未、龜毛等法。雖識內變影像，虛疎如瓶、衣等，唯世俗有，非如內識體，少實故，亦勝義有。下第十云：然相分等依識變現，非如識性依他中實，一切相分並非實故，雖有二解，前解為勝。後解不依四勝義說，但殊勝義，名為勝義，此即說有三分之義。若第二師，唯有二分，釋此少別，大意亦同。此第二釋至下當知。

The Commentary states: This is the third, subsuming the nominal under the truths. That is, the substance of objects external to the mind is entirely nonexistent; based on internal delusional imagination they are nominally designated as self and dharmas, which only those of conventional [perspective] cling to as existent, whereas those of ultimate [perspective] speak of as nonexistent. The internal consciousness of causal conditions, its nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga, etc., are the entities of the dependent nature upon which nominal objects depend; those of conventional [perspective] speak of them as not nonexistent, and those of ultimate [perspective] also speak of them as existent. Here, matter and so forth, as the nimittabhāga of internal consciousness, are born from causal conditions and take their name from the root as consciousness; this is according to the meaning that internal objects exist like consciousness, which corresponds to the position below in the tenth fascicle where all three parts are real. Or, taking past, future, tortoise-hair, and such dharmas as cognitive objects: although images are transformed internally by consciousness, they are insubstantial like jars, robes, and the like, existing only conventionally; they are not like the substance of internal consciousness, which, having some reality, also exists ultimately. Below in the tenth fascicle it says: "However, the nimittabhāga and so forth appear transformed dependent on consciousness, and are not real within the dependent nature like the nature of consciousness, because all nimittabhāgas are not real." Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is superior. The latter explanation is not stated on the basis of the four ultimate truths; rather, merely that which is an extraordinary truth is called the ultimate truth. This is the meaning that affirms three parts. As for the second master, there are only two parts, and his interpretation of this differs slightly, though the general import is also the same. This second interpretation will be understood below.