成唯識論演祕 5.186

5.186

詳曰：《疏》說本空，空無有故，故非諦攝，不言識變、依如立者，諦不攝之。故第二疏言：識變虛空，三諦所攝。又依識、如所立虛空，假名虛空，非實空也。設據依如、識變，虛空言諦攝者，亦不盡理。隨能變心，何不苦、集、道諦三攝？又七真如許四諦攝，依如立空，何唯滅諦？又本空，本無，何得名為因果理耶？若言非是因果理者，如何說云四諦真理即因果理？由斯從寬，不言諦故，於理無妨。此論總談，五蘊別列，亦不相違。

Detailed examination: What the Commentary calls primordial space is primordially non-existent, and therefore not subsumed under the truths; it does not say that space transformed by consciousness or established on the basis of tathatā is not subsumed under the truths. Hence the Commentary on fascicle 2 states: 'Space transformed by consciousness is subsumed under three truths.' Furthermore, space established on the basis of consciousness or tathatā is called 'space' nominally, and is not real space. Even if one says that based on tathatā and transformation by consciousness, space is subsumed under the truths, this is still not completely reasonable. Following the consciousness that transforms it, why would it not be subsumed under the three truths of suffering, origin, and path? Furthermore, the seven suchnesses are admitted to be subsumed under the Four Truths; why would space established on tathatā be solely the truth of cessation? Moreover, how could primordial space, being primordially non-existent, be called the principle of cause and effect? If one says it is not the principle of cause and effect, how can one say that the true principle of the Four Truths is just the principle of cause and effect? Because of this, it speaks comprehensively and does not mention the truths, which presents no logical problem. That this treatise speaks generally while the Pañcaskandhaka lists them specifically is also not contradictory.