成唯識論掌中樞要 1.85

1.85

「彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設」，世間於此起執。聖教依斯義說，所執、依他隨應別說。此護法、難陀解。安惠解云：二種即依遍計所執。又與下同解。彼相唯依見、相二分，名「所轉變」。與下別解者，此中自證亦所轉變。下據我、法通依，今古同許大小所成，唯依見、相。此據實依，故並自證，種子變現行，現行亦變為種子故。真如非依，故論不說。

"Those aspects are all nominally designated relying on the transformations of consciousness": mundane beings give rise to clingings with respect to this. The sacred teachings speak relying on this meaning; the imagined and the other-dependent are explained differently as appropriate. This is the interpretation of Dharmapāla and Nanda. Sthiramati's interpretation says: Both kinds rely directly on the thoroughly imagined. Moreover, it is identical with the subsequent interpretation. Only relying on the two parts, darśana and nimitta, is it called "the transformed." The different interpretation from the subsequent [text] is that here the svasaṃvittibhāga is also what is transformed. The subsequent text is based on self and phenomena being commonly relied upon, and what is accepted alike by ancients and moderns, established by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, relies solely on the darśana and nimitta. This is based on real reliance, and hence includes the svasaṃvittibhāga, because seeds transform into actual states and actual states also transform into seeds. True Suchness is not that on which [they] rely; therefore the treatise does not mention it.