成唯識論述記 9.251

9.251

述曰：無漏二智及俱行品相、見分等，及無為法圓成性故，不執著相是此性攝。此後三種，別約三性增勝相語。故《顯揚論》十六說：「此五相中，初及第二依三自相，第三依遍計所執相，第四依依他起相，第五依圓成相。」正與此同。據實而言，第三亦有後之二性，若執二相屬所執是無，可是計所執性。所執性所依二相屬，二相屬能、所執並依他性，若但不執說二相屬，即通後二性攝。今約所執語故唯計所執。彼執著相若是所執著，亦計所執性。所依執著相亦通圓成，今據能執著心語，故言唯依他。不執著相即體是無，不可執著亦計所執。若無執著之心依他亦有，今約全非能執著語故唯圓成。然第八十一〈攝釋分〉及《顯揚》十二云：所詮相謂相等五法，能詮相謂計所執相，二相屬相謂計所執性，執所依止。執著相謂自體執及此隨眠，不執著相即計所執相及彼隨眠解脫正分別。解云：彼所詮相即依他、圓成，有實自體可為詮故，遍計所執既無有體，非可詮故。雖諸無法亦是所詮，然無差別可詮之用，非所詮攝。能詮唯計所執，非餘二者，彼二論文各自釋言：此是遍計所執性，亦名和合，乃至亦名唯有音聲，顯彼無體，唯有能詮名故，但說能詮是計所執，非餘二性非能詮攝。此即各據一義，與《顯揚》十六亦不相違。此二相屬相中，遍計所執自性執所依止，即遍計所執性也。遍計所執自性之執是能計心，執所依止是能計心之所執。所執是依止義，依止所執起計心故，故第四言遍計所執自性執，及彼隨眠是依他起。明知執所依者是遍計所執，第四可知，第五不執著相，謂染依解脫。解脫，了知圓成實攝，遍計所執相及彼習氣者，故知所執我、法都無，唯有依他染分習氣斷之得解脫。解脫即真如，正分別者，即無漏智。意言知計所執無，斷依他得解脫、正智，是不執著相。此中五相前二諸論不同，各據一義，後三諸論皆同理，不違也，廣如彼說，如是和會諸智者知。

The Commentary states: The two untainted knowledges, their associated phenomena, the nimittabhāga, darśanabhāga, and so forth, as well as unconditioned dharmas, are of the pariniṣpanna nature, and therefore the mark of non-attachment is subsumed under this nature. These latter three are stated specifically in terms of the predominant characteristics of the three natures. Therefore, fascicle sixteen of the Prakaraṇāryavācā states: “Among these five marks, the first and second rely on the three self-marks; the third relies on the mark of the parikalpita-svabhāva; the fourth relies on the mark of the paratantra-svabhāva; and the fifth relies on the mark of the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva.” This precisely agrees with this text. In actual fact, the third also possesses the latter two natures: if one grasps the mutual connection of the two, the conceptualized is non-existent and can be the parikalpita-svabhāva. The mutual connection of the two that serves as the basis of the conceptualized nature, and both the grasper and the grasped of the mutual connection of the two, belong to the paratantra nature; if one merely speaks of the mutual connection of the two without attachment, it is subsumed under the latter two natures. Here, speaking in terms of what is conceptualized, it is solely the parikalpita-svabhāva. If that mark of attachment is what is attached to, it is also the parikalpita-svabhāva. The mark of attachment that serves as the basis also extends to the pariniṣpanna; here, speaking in terms of the mind capable of attaching, it is said to be solely paratantra. As for the mark of non-attachment, its substance is non-existent, and being incapable of being attached to, it is also parikalpita. If it refers to the mind free from attachment, it also exists in paratantra; here, speaking in terms of being entirely devoid of that which is capable of attaching, it is solely pariniṣpanna. However, the eighty-first fascicle of the Viniscayasaṃgrahaṇī and Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicle twelve say: the mark of the expressed refers to the five factors such as marks; the mark of the expresser refers to the mark of the parikalpita; the mark of the mutual connection of the two refers to the parikalpita nature, the basis of grasping; the mark of attachment refers to grasping of self-nature and its dormant tendencies; the mark of non-attachment refers to the mark of the parikalpita and the liberation and correct discrimination from its dormant tendencies. The explanation is: their mark of the expressed is paratantra and pariniṣpanna, because they have real intrinsic entities that can be expressed; since the parikalpita has no entity, it cannot be expressed. Although all non-existent dharmas are also expressed, they lack distinct functions that can be expressed, and so are not subsumed under the expressed. The expresser is solely parikalpita and not the other two, because the texts of those two treatises each explain: this is the parikalpita nature, also called harmony, and so on up to being called mere sound, showing that it lacks an entity and is merely an expressing name; therefore they only state that the expresser is parikalpita, not that the other two natures cannot subsume the expresser. This is each based on a particular meaning, and does not contradict Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicle sixteen. In this mark of the mutual connection of the two, the basis of the grasping at the parikalpita self-nature is the parikalpita-svabhāva itself. The grasping at the parikalpita self-nature is the mind capable of conceptualizing; the basis of the grasping is what is conceptualized by that mind capable of conceptualizing. “What is conceptualized” has the meaning of basis, because the conceiving mind arises relying on what is conceptualized; therefore the fourth states that grasping at the parikalpita self-nature and its dormant tendencies are paratantra. Thus we clearly know that the basis of grasping is the parikalpita. The fourth can be known accordingly. The fifth, the mark of non-attachment, refers to liberation from defiled bases. Liberation means realizing what is subsumed under the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. As for the mark of the parikalpita and its traces, one thereby knows that the conceptualized self and phenomena are entirely non-existent, and there are only the traces of the defiled portion of paratantra, which being severed, liberation is attained. Liberation is tathatā; correct discrimination is untainted knowledge. The meaning is: knowing that the conceptualized is non-existent and severing paratantra, one attains liberation and right knowledge—this is the mark of non-attachment. Among these five marks, the first two differ across treatises, each relying on one perspective; the latter three are identical in reasoning across treatises and do not conflict, as extensively explained there; the wise will know how to harmonize them thus.