成唯識論述記 9.329

9.329

述曰：釋依他起亦名勝義無性，此文不說之所由，無之言非，依他雖有體法而非勝義，名勝義無性。所執無故，不可為例。又七十六云：「謂諸法生無自性性，故說名無自性，故即緣生法。」《顯揚》云：不遮緣生，遮自然生故，即緣生法亦名勝義無自性性。於諸法中，若是清淨所緣境，我顯彼為勝義無性。依他起相亦是清淨所緣境界故，亦說為勝義無性。無漏後得真智名勝，亦緣此依他為境故，此依他亦名清淨所緣，勝之義故。所執既無，非為聖境，不得此名。然無彼計所執故，故說勝義無性，乃至廣說。若說依他為勝義無性，此圓成實即為第二勝義無性，今恐依他勝義無性濫第二圓成勝義無性故，此頌中但說圓成勝義無性，不說依他為勝義無性，應如彼經廣說譬喻。

The Commentary states: Explaining why the other-dependent is also called ultimate non-nature, and the reason why this text does not speak of it: the word 'non' (wu) means 'not' (fei); although the other-dependent is a phenomenon possessing substance, it is not the ultimate, hence it is called ultimate non-nature. Since what is imagined is non-existent, it cannot serve as an analogy. Furthermore, fascicle seventy-six states: 'Because phenomena have production-naturelessness, they are spoken of as natureless; hence they are conditionally produced phenomena.' The Prakaraṇāryavācā states: 'It does not negate conditional production, but negates spontaneous production; hence conditionally produced phenomena are also called ultimate naturelessness. Among all phenomena, if something is the cognitive object of purification, I reveal that as ultimate naturelessness.' Because the marks of the other-dependent are also the cognitive sphere of purification, they are also spoken of as ultimate naturelessness. The untainted subsequent real cognition is called 'ultimate' (parama), and because it also takes this other-dependent as its object, this other-dependent is also called the cognitive object of purification, which is the meaning of 'ultimate'. Since what is imagined is non-existent, it is not a noble sphere and does not receive this name. Yet because it lacks that falsely imagined nature, it is called ultimate naturelessness, down to extensive explanations. If the other-dependent were spoken of as ultimate naturelessness, this consummate nature would then be a second ultimate naturelessness; now, fearing that the other-dependent as ultimate naturelessness would be confused with the second, consummate ultimate naturelessness, this verse mentions only the consummate ultimate naturelessness and does not speak of the other-dependent as ultimate naturelessness; one should consult that sūtra for its extensive similes.