成唯識論了義燈 7.28

7.28

Answer: They are not analogous. If in terms of negative expression (apoha), it is not the naturelessness of arising, hence calling it "naturelessness of arising" means that the perfected is not the nature of the naturelessness of arising. If in terms of positive expression, it is the naturelessness of arising, so calling it "naturelessness of arising" reveals that it is the nature of the preceding two natures. Therefore they are not analogous. The Yaoji states that "they are analogous and all admissible," but based on this one knows it is wrong. Furthermore, the fundamental commentary states that the dependent is also subsequent [wisdom's] object, and the principle of the supreme is called ultimate, which immediately cuts off contradiction with the sūtra. Calling the dependent and the like the naturelessness of characteristics and so forth—from what sacred teaching does this derive? Thus it is not an error.