[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 9.157 # 成唯識論述記 9.157 成唯識論述記 9.157 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.157](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.157) 述曰：又釋一義。依他彼，真如此，既體一，俱應是淨、非淨境，以體一故。《中邊》第一云：「無二、有無故，非有亦非無，非異亦非一，是說為空相。」正與此同。七十四說：唯此真如聖智境，依他起凡、聖智境。又依他境體不淨，真如境體是淨，二性既一，彼依他境體應亦淨，真如境體應不淨。又依他既通凡、聖境，真如應亦然。既爾，即根本無分別智與後得智應無別體，本智本緣如，亦緣依他故；後得緣依他，亦緣真如故。此約見分以為妨難，故二無別。《攝論》云：由依他種生成依他，由遍計所緣相故，遍計所遍計，故成遍計所執，由即此自性成圓成實，如所遍計不如是有故。故三性非異、非不異。世親云：謂意識是遍計，此依他起為所取所緣境性能生遍計，是故亦名遍計所執，即依他起為境生遍計心義，名計所執性，即釋遍計所緣相故，是所遍計故者，即彼意識名遍計，緣彼相貌為所取境，為所遍計。由此依他亦名計所執性，謂依他起為遍計心之所緣故，亦名計所執。前即為境能生計心，名計所執；後為計心之所緣，故名計所執。總解本論，是一義也。無性云：非異者，依他起有，計所執無。有望於有，可得言異；有望非有，非可異故。彼既是無，望何為異？非不異者，有與非有不成一故，依他不淨，圓成淨故，故彼三性非異、非不異。此為一解。又由依他是我、色等遍計所執所依止故，依他起名計所執，遍計所緣相故，即是依他為計所執之所依，名計所執也。此與前世親別。又依他起是我、色等意識遍計所遍計故，即依他起為能遍計之所計執，名計所執，彼云：由此意趣假說依他為計所執，此解第三頌上二句故，此與依他非異、非不異訖。 > The Commentary states: It also explains another meaning. That \[nature of\] other-dependent \[arising\] and this \[nature of\] tathatā, since they are one in substance, both ought to be pure and non-pure objects, because their substance is one. The first fascicle of the Madhyāntavibhāga states: "Because of non-duality, existence, and non-existence, / It is neither existent nor non-existent, / Neither different nor one; / This is spoken of as the mark of emptiness." This is precisely the same as this. Fascicle seventy-four \[of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra\] states: Only this tathatā is an object of noble knowledge; other-dependent arising is an object of ordinary and noble knowledge. Furthermore, the substance of the other-dependent object is impure, while the substance of the tathatā object is pure; since the two natures are one, the substance of that other-dependent object ought also to be pure, and the substance of the tathatā object ought to be impure. Furthermore, since the other-dependent is common to the objects of both ordinary people and noble ones, tathatā ought to be likewise. If that is so, then fundamental non-conceptual wisdom and subsequent wisdom ought not to have distinct substances, because fundamental wisdom originally takes tathatā as its cognitive object, and thus would also take the other-dependent as its cognitive object; and subsequent wisdom takes the other-dependent as its cognitive object, and thus would also take tathatā as its cognitive object. This constitutes an objection with respect to the darśanabhāga, so the two would have no distinction. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "By the seed of the other-dependent, the other-dependent is generated; by the nimittabhāga that is the cognitive object of false discrimination, what is discriminated by false discrimination becomes the parikalpita; and by this very self-nature \[becoming absent\] as it is discriminated, it becomes the pariniṣpanna, because it does not exist as it is falsely discriminated." Therefore, the three natures are neither different nor non-different. Vasubandhu says: "Mental consciousness is false discrimination. This other-dependent arising, serving as the apprehended object and cognitive condition, can generate false discrimination; therefore, it is also named parikalpita." That is, other-dependent arising, by serving as an object that generates the falsely discriminating mind, is called the parikalpita-svabhāva. That is, in explaining the phrase "by the nimittabhāga that is the cognitive object of false discrimination, it is what is discriminated," that mental consciousness is named false discrimination, and taking its appearance as the apprehended object, it is what is falsely discriminated. Therefore, this other-dependent is also named parikalpita-svabhāva; meaning that because other-dependent arising is the cognitive object of the falsely discriminating mind, it is also called parikalpita. The former means that by being the object that can generate the discriminating mind, it is called parikalpita; the latter means that by being the cognitive object of the discriminating mind, it is called parikalpita. Overall, in explaining the root treatise, these are one and the same meaning. Asvabhāva says: "As for being 'not different,' other-dependent arising exists, while parikalpita does not exist. Where existence is compared to existence, one may speak of difference; but when existence is compared to non-existence, there can be no difference. Since that \[latter\] is non-existent, compared to what could it be different? As for being 'not non-different,' existence and non-existence do not form an identity, and the other-dependent is impure while the pariniṣpanna is pure; therefore, those three natures are neither different nor non-different." This is one explanation. Furthermore, because the other-dependent is the support for what is falsely discriminated as self, form, and so forth, other-dependent arising is called parikalpita; by being the nimittabhāga of the cognitive object of false discrimination, it is the support of false discrimination, and is thus called parikalpita. This differs from Vasubandhu's previous \[explanation\]. Furthermore, because other-dependent arising is what is falsely discriminated by the false discrimination of mental consciousness as self, form, and so forth, other-dependent arising is what is falsely grasped by the agent of false discrimination, and is thus called parikalpita. He says: "By this intention, the other-dependent is metaphorically called parikalpita." Because this explains the upper two lines of the third verse, this concludes \[the exposition that\] this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.156](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.156) - [Next: 9.158](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.158) - [Up: 9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.9.157) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (4) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.7.51) — Classical Chinese - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!upanibandhana*zh-xuanzang.4.52) — Classical Chinese - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.4.48) — Classical Chinese - [辯中邊論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.madhyantavibhaga!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.1.30) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.157](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.157) · Pramāṇa