成唯識論演祕 7.191

7.191

釋曰：牒經為問。《論》：「於依他起自性中，遍計所執自性是雜染分，圓成實有性是清淨分，即依他起是彼二分。依此密意作如是說。喻如世間金土藏中，三法可得：一、地界；二、土；三、金。於地界中，土非實有，而現可得；金是實有，而不可得。火燒練時，土相不現，金相顯現。識亦如是，無分別智火未燒時，於此識中所有虛妄遍計所執自性顯現，所有真實圓成自性不顯現。此識若為無分別智火所燒時，於此識中所有真實圓成自性顯現，所有虛妄遍計所執自性不顯現；是故此虛妄分別識依他起自性有彼二分，如金土藏中所有地界。」釋論云：「地」喻依他，「土」喻遍計，「金」喻圓成。由唯識性是依他起，遍計、圓成是此性分。又云：「世尊有處說一切法常，有處說一切法無常，有處說一切法非常、非無常，依何密意作如是說？謂依他起自性，由圓成實性分是常，由遍計所執性分是無常，由彼二分非常、非無常。」釋論云：謂依他起法性真如，體是常住；遍計所執自性分邊，體是無常。此性常無，故名無常，非有生滅說名無常。

Explanation: It takes up the sūtra text as a question. Treatise: "Within the other-dependent nature, the imagined nature is the defiled portion, the consummate existent nature is the pure portion, and the other-dependent nature itself is both portions. Based on this implicit intention, it is stated thus. For example, in the world, within an ore of gold and earth, three things are obtained: 1. the earth element; 2. earth; 3. gold. In the earth element, earth is not substantially existent, yet it is visibly obtained; gold is substantially existent, yet it cannot be obtained. When burned and smelted with fire, the sign of earth does not appear, and the sign of gold appears. Consciousness is also like this: when not yet burned by the fire of non-conceptual wisdom, all false imagined natures appear in this consciousness, and all real consummate natures do not appear. When this consciousness is burned by the fire of non-conceptual wisdom, all real consummate natures appear in this consciousness, and all false imagined natures do not appear; therefore, this other-dependent nature of consciousness of false discrimination possesses those two portions, just like the earth element contained within an ore of gold and earth." The commentary says: "Earth [element]" illustrates the other-dependent, "earth" illustrates the imagined, and "gold" illustrates the consummate. Because the nature of vijñapti-mātra is the other-dependent, the imagined and the consummate are portions of this nature. It also says: "The World-Honoured One in some places says that all dharmas are permanent, in some places says that all dharmas are impermanent, and in some places says that all dharmas are neither permanent nor impermanent. Based on what implicit intention is this stated? It means that the other-dependent nature, by virtue of the consummate nature portion, is permanent; by virtue of the imagined nature portion, is impermanent; and by virtue of both portions, is neither permanent nor impermanent." The commentary says: It means that the dharmatā-suchness of the other-dependent is permanently abiding in substance; on the side of the imagined nature portion, its substance is impermanent. This nature is constantly non-existent, and is therefore called impermanent; it is not called impermanent on account of having arising and ceasing.