成唯識論述記 10.342

10.342

述曰：解能證得有四：上來已明三訖。自下第四，明所證如。於中有四：一、總牒如；二、別解；三、釋難；四、廢立。此中真如約詮辨體，若不爾者，且如初如非先不遍，今者方遍，亦非真如可說遍故，若不約詮說遍何法？遍行如者，《攝論》第七十地中說，世親菩薩解云：「謂此法界遍一切行，以無少法非無我故」。無性云：此即法空，無有少法而非空故。彼約詮說一無我、一空理皆不足，體、用別故。今此所論二空如，是總包彼也，無有一法非二空故。新《中邊》第一云：「由通達此，證得自他平等法性」。舊論通云「證得一分」，猶有後地不名全得故。因論生論，何名二空之所對治二行相別？答：執法有體，執法有用，二所治別也。有主宰、任持行相別故，故能治道亦有別也。

The Commentary states: In explaining what is capable of realization, there are four points: the preceding has already clarified three. Next is the fourth, clarifying the suchness that is realized. In this there are four: first, summarizing suchness; second, explaining each separately; third, resolving difficulties; fourth, rejecting and establishing. Here, suchness is determined as an entity based on verbal designation; if it were not so, then just as the first suchness was not previously non-pervasive and only now pervasive, nor could suchness be said to be pervasive; if not based on verbal designation, what dharma would it be said to pervade? The omnipresent suchness: fascicle seven of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, under the ten stages, states that Bodhisattva Vasubandhu explained: 'It means that this dharma-realm pervades all activities, because there is no slight dharma that is not devoid of self.' Asvabhāva says: 'This is the emptiness of dharmas, because there is no slight dharma that is not empty.' That they speak via verbal designation of a single selflessness and a single principle of emptiness is in both cases incomplete, because essence and function differ. What is discussed here as the suchness of the two emptinesses comprehensively subsumes them, because there is not a single dharma that is not [characterized by] the two emptinesses. The new Madhyāntavibhāga, fascicle one, states: 'By penetrating this, one realizes the equal dharma-nature of self and other.' The older treatise collectively said 'one realizes a portion,' because there are still subsequent stages and it is not called full attainment. Because discourse gives rise to discourse: what are the differences between the two modes of activity that counteract the two emptinesses? Answer: grasping dharmas as having an essence, and grasping dharmas as having a function—these are the differences between the two objects of counteraction. Because the modes of activity of sovereignty and sustaining differ, the paths capable of counteracting them also differ.