成唯識論述記 9.155

9.155

The Commentary states: Below, the first three lines of the third verse are explained. As for 'This is neither different nor non-different from the other-dependent nature': treatises such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha all explain difference and non-difference with respect to all three natures, whereas here it is only contrasted with the other-dependent nature because these two natures are entities that exist, contrasted with each other, not the imagined nature, as it lacks substance. That [treatise] contrasts them in terms of nature, so all three are contrasted; this [treatise] contrasts them in terms of substance, and since that one lacks substance, it contrasts only the two. In this, the Treatise states: Due to the aforesaid reasoning of neither identical nor separate, if the other-dependent nature were definitively different from that, suchness would not be its real nature. Since it would be different from that, it would not be that [nature]. If it were entirely non-different, this nature of suchness would be impermanent, because the other-dependent is impermanent and this would be identical to that.