成唯識論了義燈 5.71

5.71

Regarding the various explanations of satkāyadṛṣṭi: the Yaoji says: "The Mahāyāna concept of 'transposition' (parāvṛtti) shares the intention of Vasubandhu; it does not mean that existence and nonexistence are indeterminate. Or, it is called 'transposition' because it differs from the two schools [of Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika], because the principle is already determined and the name does not conform [to either]." Now I say this is not so; it fails to grasp the original intention. The Commentary says: "Now the Mahāyāna intention is that the image appearing on the mind resembling a self is not substantially existent in its essence, because it is a nominal dharma. Furthermore, its essence is not utterly nonexistent, because the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva) constitutes an objective-condition (ālambana-pratyaya); hence it is said to be neither substantially existent nor deceptive. It is solely a dharma of transposition arisen from conditions, the support of the self." (This agrees with the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, etc.) It also says: "Furthermore, based on what is conceptualized (parikalpita), it may be called deceptive; based on the transformed image, it may be called existent. It is not like other schools which are determinately real or determinately deceptive; hence it is called 'transposition.'" This intention does not say that it is called transposition because it differs from the two schools; it merely says that it is a dharma of transposition arisen from multiple conditions. It is not like the Sarvāstivāda's reality, nor like the Sautrāntika's nominal aggregated image; it is not called transposition because of the indeterminacy of the two schools of existence and nonexistence.