成唯識論了義燈 7.2

7.2

《論》云：「即依此前所說三性」等者。解此前後，略為三釋：一云無性先陳，三性後說。今釋外難，即指《論》云「即依此前所明三性」中，世尊經中後時解說三種無性。雖前總說諸法無性，不為顯說三種無性。後方分別所說無者，即依三性，云「立彼後說」，非三性後方說無性。如第一卷釋外難云：「若唯有識，云何世間及諸聖教說有我、法？」論主為答：「所說我、法皆依識變。」不是先說唯識，後說我、法，此解亦順《深密》三時。

Regarding the Śāstra's statement: "Relying precisely on the previously expounded three natures," and so forth: to explain this order of prior and posterior, there are briefly three interpretations. The first says that naturelessness was stated first, and the three natures were expounded later. Now resolving the external objection, it refers to the Śāstra's saying "relying precisely on the three natures clarified previously," in which the World-Honoured One in the sūtras subsequently explained the three kinds of naturelessness. Although previously he generally stated that all dharmas are natureless, he did not explicitly expound the three kinds of naturelessness. It was only later that he differentiated that what was called non-existent relies on the three natures, which is why it says "established in that subsequent teaching," not that naturelessness was expounded only after the three natures. Just as the first fascicle resolves an external objection: "If there is only consciousness, why do worldly people and the holy teachings speak of self and dharmas?" The author of the Śāstra answers: "The expounded self and dharmas are both transformations relying on consciousness." It does not mean that vijñapti-mātra was expounded first and self and dharmas later. This explanation also accords with the three periods of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra.