般若心經略疏連珠記 2.25

2.25

「三就」下，三、就觀行釋，二：初正釋。「謂於」等者，標指也。具言三無性者，謂相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。於中二：初、對三無性說。一於遍計作無相觀，由無遍計方顯無相。故《唯識》云「依此三性，說彼三無性。」是知若無遍計，安知無相？「謂彼」等者，遍計之法，妄情謂有、道理是無，古今觀之無可生滅。「二於」等者，染淨之法從因緣生，無有生故。故經云「一切法無來，是故無有生。以生無有故，滅亦不可得。」既本無生，將何垢淨？三、圓成中言「前二不有」者，謂依、計也，此約空性二宗義說。若法相宗，但無遍計。「又」下，約本性重釋圓成也。

Under 'third, with respect to contemplative practice' is, thirdly, explaining with respect to contemplative practice, which has two: first, correct explanation. 'It refers to' and so forth points out and indicates. Stating the three non-natures completely, they are the nature of the non-nature of characteristics, the nature of the non-nature of arising, and the nature of the non-nature of ultimate truth. Therein are two [parts]: first, explaining in contrast to the three non-natures. First, one performs the contemplation of signlessness regarding the parikalpita; only through the non-existence of parikalpita is signlessness revealed. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā states: 'Relying on these three natures, those three non-natures are spoken.' From this one knows that without parikalpita, how could one know signlessness? 'That' and so forth means: dharmas of parikalpita are considered existent by false sentiment, but are non-existent according to principle; contemplating them through past and present, there is nothing that can arise or cease. 'Second, regarding' and so forth means: defiled and pure dharmas arise from causes and conditions, and have no arising. Therefore the sūtra says: 'All dharmas have no coming; therefore they have no arising. Because arising does not exist, ceasing also cannot be found.' Since they originally have no arising, how could there be defilement and purity? Third, stating within pariniṣpanna that 'the preceding two do not exist' refers to paratantra and parikalpita; this is spoken according to the doctrine of both the emptiness and nature traditions. If it is the Dharmalakṣaṇa school, it only lacks parikalpita. Under 'moreover' is re-explaining pariniṣpanna with respect to original nature.