成唯識論述記 9.150

9.150

述曰：遍計所執、依他前說，今空於所執，不空於依他，「前」言顯此頌中，但言「常遠離」前遍計所執已，空計所執，更言「性」者此復何用？

The Commentary states: The imagined and the other-dependent were explained previously; now, we empty the imagined, but do not empty the other-dependent. The word 'former' indicates this. If the verse, merely by saying 'eternally remote from the former' imagined nature, has already emptied the imagined, what further purpose does saying 'nature' serve?