成唯識論述記 2.545

2.545

述曰：善等真如約詮而論，體唯是一，此五無為依真如上假名空等，而真如體非如、非不如，故真如名亦是假立。如食油虫等，不稱彼體，唯言顯故。若真如名所詮非「如」體，何故說「如」為有？

The Commentary states: In terms of what is expressed, the tathatā of wholesome phenomena and so forth has only a single substance. These five unconditioned phenomena are nominally designated as space and so forth based on tathatā; yet the substance of tathatā is neither such nor not such, and therefore the name 'tathatā' is also nominally established. Just as an insect called 'oil-eater' does not truly correspond to its substance, it is only expressed through speech. If the designated meaning of the name 'tathatā' is not the substance of 'thusness', why is 'thusness' spoken of as existent?