成唯識論演祕 7.340

7.340

詳曰：據文麁顯，有義為優。下總攝義釋本頌文，而明三忍印能、所取，初、後二忍皆無「順」字。若窮理談，《疏》亦無失。初忍未修，順無能取，不立「順」名；後順觀彼，故有於順。下攝義中，舉中顯後，文略影耳。今助一釋：順通初二，初忍雖未修、無能取，印所取無，即是順無能取義也，能、所二取相待立故。故《論》結云：「印前順後，立『印順』名。」上忍已印，不可言「順」，下文影顯，但中言「順」，亦不相違。

Detailed analysis: Based on the surface reading of the text, the other opinion is superior. Later, in summarising the meaning to explain the root verses and elucidating the three forbearances' confirmation of the grasper and grasped, the character 'conforming' is absent in both the initial and the final forbearances. Yet if one examines the ultimate principle, the Commentary is also not in error: in the initial forbearance, one has not yet cultivated [the insight], and because it has not conformed to [the nonexistence of] the grasper, the name 'conforming' is not established; later, one conforms to observing it, and thus there is 'conforming'. In the summary of meaning below, mentioning the middle implies the final; the text is abbreviated and merely alludes to it. Now, to supply an alternative interpretation: 'conforming' extends to the first two; although in the initial forbearance one has not yet cultivated [the insight] and lacks [the realization of the nonexistence of] the grasper, confirming the nonexistence of the grasped is itself the sense of conforming to the nonexistence of the grasper, because the two graspers—subject and object—are established in mutual dependence. Hence the Treatise concludes: 'Confirming the former and conforming to the latter, it is named "confirming and conforming".' In the highest forbearance, one has already confirmed it and it cannot be called 'conforming'; the text below merely alludes to it and only mentions 'conforming' in the middle, which does not contradict this either.