成唯識論演祕 1.360

1.360

答：實但似情及似於內。言似外等，約彼執情所執相說，所執之相是所遍計，體是無故。故《疏》前後望義說別，亦不相違。有義論言：似二分者而有二釋，一云相似名似，如《疏》所辨；二云以非實故說為似也，非謂似言別有所似。後說為勝，聖教我、法亦此中說，不可說名似所執故。或通二釋攝義方終。

Answer: In reality, it merely resembles mental projection and resembles the internal. Speaking of resembling the external and so forth is said with reference to the forms grasped by that grasping mental projection; since the grasped forms are the fully conceptualized (parikalpita) and are intrinsically nonexistent, there is no contradiction in the Commentary's differing expressions based on different aspects. Another opinion says: As for the Treatise saying 'resembling the two divisions', there are two explanations. The first says that being similar is called 'resembling', as explained in the Commentary. The second says that because they are not real, they are spoken of as 'resembling', not that the word 'resembling' implies something else being resembled. The latter explanation is superior: the 'self' and 'dharmas' of the noble teachings are also spoken of in this context, and one cannot speak of them as resembling what is grasped. Alternatively, encompass both explanations, and the meaning will then be complete.