成唯識論了義燈 6.173

6.173

答：相通三種，亦三種境。此意三脫以相為體，即少分是能觀，全分是所觀，各通三攝，諦行是相故，各通三分。若據名說，名通三諦，實唯苦、道，是無記故，非集諦攝，隨聲假說，亦是集諦，得通無漏，亦道諦收。依名行相通空、無願，故三諦下四行少分，空、無願攝。故彼論云：名非三種，是二種境，意除無相。若依分別苦、集諦八各可三攝，能觀通三諦故。若據所觀空、無願攝，彼云分別通三是二種境。

The answer is: "Marks extend to the three kinds, and are also the objects of the three kinds." This means that the three liberations take marks as their essence; thus a minor portion is the observing [wisdom] and the full portion is what is observed, each commonly subsumed by the three. Because the aspects of the truths are marks, they each extend to the three divisions. If explained in terms of names, names extend to three truths; in reality they are only suffering and the path, for being morally indeterminate, they are not subsumed under the truth of arising. In accordance with voice as conventional designation, they are also the truth of arising; as they can be anāsrava, they are also included in the truth of the path. The aspects based on names extend to emptiness and the wishless; therefore, a minor portion of the four aspects under the three truths is subsumed by emptiness and the wishless. Hence that treatise says: "Names are not the three kinds; they are the objects of two kinds"—meaning that the signless is excluded. If based on discrimination, the eight of the truths of suffering and arising can each be subsumed by the three, because the observing [wisdom] extends to the three truths. In terms of what is observed, they are subsumed by emptiness and the wishless. It says there: "Discrimination extends to the three, and is the object of two kinds."