成唯識論了義燈 5.71

5.71

薩迦耶見諸釋云：云《要集》云：大乘移轉，意同世親，非謂有無不定。或異二宗，名為移轉。理已定故，名不順故。今謂不爾，不得本意。《疏》云：今大乘意，心上所現似我之相，體非實有，是假法故。又體非全無，依他起性成所緣緣故，說非實有亦非虛偽。唯是依他移轉之法，我之所依。（此同《攝論》等。）又云：又依所執可言虛偽，依所變相可言為有，非如餘宗定實定偽，故名為移轉。此意不云：異二宗故名為移轉，但云：是眾緣生移轉之法。不同有部，實非如經部假和合相，不以有無二宗，不定名為移轉。

Regarding the various explanations of satkāyadṛṣṭi: the Yaoji says: "The Mahāyāna concept of 'transposition' (parāvṛtti) shares the intention of Vasubandhu; it does not mean that existence and nonexistence are indeterminate. Or, it is called 'transposition' because it differs from the two schools [of Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika], because the principle is already determined and the name does not conform [to either]." Now I say this is not so; it fails to grasp the original intention. The Commentary says: "Now the Mahāyāna intention is that the image appearing on the mind resembling a self is not substantially existent in its essence, because it is a nominal dharma. Furthermore, its essence is not utterly nonexistent, because the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) constitutes an objective-condition (ālambana-pratyaya); hence it is said to be neither substantially existent nor deceptive. It is solely a dharma of transposition arisen from conditions, the support of the self." (This agrees with the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, etc.) It also says: "Furthermore, based on what is conceptualized (parikalpita), it may be called deceptive; based on the transformed image, it may be called existent. It is not like other schools which are determinately real or determinately deceptive; hence it is called 'transposition.'" This intention does not say that it is called transposition because it differs from the two schools; it merely says that it is a dharma of transposition arisen from multiple conditions. It is not like the Sarvāstivāda's reality, nor like the Sautrāntika's nominal aggregated image; it is not called transposition because of the indeterminacy of the two schools of existence and nonexistence.