楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 3.147

3.147

聖亦不如是等者，《入楞伽》云：「聖亦不如凡所分別如是得故，非自所行境界相故。」彼亦性自性者，言聖人亦有真實性相，聖人既有是性，愚夫固亦有之，故曰「妄想自性如是現」。然如來真實性相離乎因緣及無因性，而凡愚妄想自性則墮性相之見。聖人所行境界既異凡愚，則不如彼墮於性相無窮之失，由不能覺了性自性相故也。亦非妄想自性等，言諸法性相不因分別，云何言分別而有耶？故結難曰：彼凡夫云何得妄想非妄想，如實知妄想之不實也。

'The noble ones also do not in this way,' and so forth: the Ru lengqie says, 'The noble ones also do not attain [things] in the way ordinary people differentiate them, because it is not the characteristic of the realm of their own practice.' 'That too is the svabhāva of natures': this means that the noble one also has the real nature and characteristics; since the noble one has this nature, the fool certainly has it as well, hence it is said, 'appearing in this way as the svabhāva of vikalpa.' However, the Tathāgata's real nature and characteristics are free from causes and conditions as well as causelessness, whereas the foolish ordinary person's svabhāva of vikalpa falls into the views of nature and characteristics. Since the realm traversed by the noble ones differs from that of the foolish ordinary persons, it does not fall into their infinite faults of nature and characteristics, which is due to being unable to perceive the characteristics of the svabhāva of natures. 'It is also not that the svabhāva of vikalpa,' and so forth: this means that the nature and characteristics of dharmas do not depend on vikalpa, so how could one say they exist due to vikalpa? Therefore he concludes with the objection: How can that ordinary person have vikalpa and non-vikalpa, and truly know the unreality of vikalpa?