成唯識論述記 9.146

9.146

述曰：下重釋第三句「於彼」二字，即約遮詮顯圓成實。頌第三句言「於彼」者，顯此與依他不即不離，依他是所於，真如是能於，非即一法有所、能於，顯如與依他體非即故。若是即者，真如應有滅，依他應不生。言不離者，即於彼依他上有真如故，非不於彼，不可言離。若全離者，如應非彼依他之性，應離依他別有如性，云何言「於彼」？故「於彼」言顯不即離，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此也。

The Commentary states: Below, it re-explains the two words 'in that' of the third line, revealing the consummated nature in terms of negative exposition. The verse stating 'in that' in the third line indicates that this is neither identical to nor separate from the other-dependent. The other-dependent is the locus in which [it exists]; suchness is that which exists [in it]. It is not that a single phenomenon possesses both being the locus and that which exists in it, which indicates that suchness and the other-dependent are not identical in substance. If they were identical, suchness would be subject to cessation, and the other-dependent would not arise. Saying 'not separate' means that suchness exists upon that very other-dependent; since it is not absent in that, one cannot speak of separation. If they were entirely separate, suchness would not be the nature of that other-dependent, and there would have to be a nature of suchness distinct from the other-dependent; how then could one say 'in that'? Therefore, the words 'in that' indicate that they are neither identical nor separate; herein there is only emptiness, and in that there is also this.