成唯識論了義燈 1.128

1.128

The Treatise: "Objects depend on internal consciousness." Only conventional consciousness is the support of false objects, and the ultimate is as well. There are four explanations: First, the contrast between existence and non-existence: the imagined is unreal and exists only conventionally; the dependent arises from conditions, and the support of the object also exists ultimately. Second, the contrast between nimitta-bhāga and darśana-bhāga: the nimitta-bhāga is provisional, and depending on the darśana-bhāga a provisional object arises, so the support of the object exists only conventionally; the darśana-bhāga is real, and what can give rise to the nimitta-bhāga is a provisional object, depending on what exists ultimately. Third, the contrast between superior and inferior: the worldly and conventional exists only conventionally, and the latter three, contrasted with the former, also exist ultimately. Fourth, the contrast between the ordinary and the noble: the object of the ordinary is only conventional, and the object of the noble is also ultimate. Although there are four explanations, the meaning of the text here only relies on the first contrast. Question: Based on what ordinary and noble [minds] cognize, should the imagined also be called ultimate truth? Answer: Accepting this poses no fault either. Fascicle 8 below says: "It can also be said to be the object of ordinary and noble cognition." Since it serves as an object for the noble, it is also named ultimate; it is just not named existent. Here, it is because of the subsumption under the truths of existence and non-existence.