成唯識論了義燈 7.29

7.29

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Yet it would be confused with the second; therefore this is not stated": Ximing says, "It was feared that this ultimate truth of the dependent [nature] would be confused with the second, the naturelessness of birth; therefore, this is not stated." The Yaoji says, "[This explanation is] superior." Now I state that this is not so. That sūtra and treatise speak of two ultimate truths, the dependent being the first and the fully perfected the second; it was feared that the ultimate truth of the dependent would be confused with the second, the ultimate truth of the fully perfected. This is a qualification to eliminate confusion made by contrasting their explanations as ultimate truth; what relevance does it have to the naturelessness of birth? If one feared confusion and qualified that, why would qualification be necessary? What is meant here is: the ultimate truth of all phenomena is the true nature of vijñapti-mātra. Because the former is not the true nature, it is qualified for fear of confusion. If, because the dependent was feared to be confused with the naturelessness of birth, it is not spoken of as the ultimate naturelessness of nature, then it should also follow that the dependent is termed fully perfected, yet out of fear of confusion with the second, the dependent nature, it would not be spoken of as fully perfected. Since it is named ultimate truth based on a distinct meaning, its meaning does not generate confusion with the naturelessness of birth, so there is no need to qualify it; but since they share the name 'ultimate truth', confusion would arise, so qualification is necessary.