成唯識論演祕 3.843

3.843

詳曰：實言唯屬常寂之法，可如所判。若因招果，道理非謬，名之為實，自宗依他，何不名實？即次下云趣生體者，謂要實有，此趣生體，豈非依他？聖教說實，處非一也，由斯破救，道理無違。又若無救，如何論云外道毀謗？亦不謂全無，亦言亦誰，故知疏解深得奧旨。

Detailed analysis: If the word 'real' belongs exclusively to dharmas that are permanent and tranquil, it could be judged as stated. But if a cause produces a fruit and the principle is unerring, it is called 'real'; why should the other-dependent nature of our own school not be called 'real'? Just below, it says that the entity of the realms of rebirth (gati) must be substantially existent; how could this entity of the realms of rebirth not be other-dependent? The sacred teachings speak of 'real' in more than one place. For this reason, refuting their defense does not contradict principle. Furthermore, if there were no defense, why would the Treatise say 'the denigration by non-Buddhists is also not considered total non-existence'? The word 'also' refers to whom? Hence we know that the Commentary's explanation profoundly grasps the profound purport.