成唯識論了義燈 6.188

6.188

《論》：聚集、分位等者，分位假者。依法分位，作用不同，立別法名，名分位假，即忿、覆等。《論》云：煩惱分位，等流性故。分位即忿等，等流無慚等。如名、句等但分位假。《論》云：三分位。故佛一剎那聲亦能詮。無文說此不相應法，是相續假。又放逸等，既分位假，不放逸等，返此可知。若云，既與四俱不同忿等，何名分位者。亦不然，生等法俱何名分位。若云前後位殊，名為分位，亦防修、不防修位殊名為分位，或通分位及聚集假。擇、非擇滅，亦分位假。無為雖非起盡，分位亦得，名為染淨分位。故《法華經》名為法位。然今論云，圓成實性唯是實有，不由他緣而施設者。據真如說，非謂擇滅之待他緣。又釋唯實雖由智顯，本性自有，不由緣生而施設故。

Regarding the Śāstra's mention of "aggregates, states, and the like": as for states being nominal, according to the different states and functions of dharmas, distinct names of dharmas are established, which are called nominal in state, namely anger, concealment, and the like. The Śāstra states: "Because they are states of defilement and of an outflow nature (niṣyanda)." States refers to anger and the like; outflows refers to shamelessness and the like. Just as words, sentences, and the like are only nominal in state, the Śāstra states: "The three states." Thus, even a single instant of the Buddha's voice can express meaning. No text says that these non-concomitant dharmas are nominal as continuous series. Furthermore, since negligence and the like are nominal in state, non-negligence and the like can be known by contrast. If one argues: "Since they are associated with the four [defilements] unlike anger and the like, how can they be called states?" This is also not correct; when arising and other dharmas occur together, how are they called states? If one argues: "Differences between prior and subsequent states are called states," then differences between states of preventing/cultivating and not preventing/cultivating are also called states; or it covers both states and nominal aggregates. Analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) and non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) are also nominal in state. Although unconditioned dharmas have neither arising nor perishing, states are also admissible, called states of defilement and purity. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra calls them "states of dharmas" (dharmasthiti). However, when the present Śāstra states that the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) is solely real and established without relying on other conditions, this is said with respect to tathatā, not meaning that analytical cessation depends on other conditions. Alternatively, it is explained that although the solely real is revealed through wisdom, it exists by its own fundamental nature, established without arising from conditions.