成唯識論了義燈 7.20

7.20

答：言「勝義無」，無彼勝義。若言「生無」，恐緣生亦無。又不無生無故，但言「勝義無」。又濫二性，亦是勝義，亦是生無。前已說生無，今但說勝義無，故不雙無。又復依他不但自然生無，所執相亦無，故不言生無。又復無彼勝義無，不無相、生無，據無分別智境義，依他不是，故云非勝義。

Answer: The phrase "ultimate absence" means absence of that ultimate. If one said "absence of arising," one might fear that arising from conditions is also absent. Furthermore, because it does not lack the absence of arising, it merely says "ultimate absence." Furthermore, it would be confused with the two natures, being both ultimate and absent of arising. Since the absence of arising has already been expounded previously, now only ultimate absence is expounded, so it does not duplicate absence. Furthermore, the dependent not only lacks spontaneous arising, but its imagined characteristics are also absent; therefore it does not say absence of arising. Furthermore, lacking that ultimate absence does not mean it does not lack characteristics and arising; in terms of being the object-principle of non-conceptual wisdom, the dependent is not such, hence it says "not the ultimate."