楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 3.190

3.190

此顯正教。初大慧反問，如來所說亦同世論，凡有二難，如文云云。如為他方諸天人眾廣說諸法，則隨他意語，豈亦非自通義？亦何異於外道世智言說耶？答中先拂初難，言我不說世論。蓋世論說去來，佛唯說不去不來。來言趣聚會生者，謂來則眾緣和合而生。去言散壞者，謂去則緣散而滅。佛說異是言，不去不來即不生不滅，乃我所通。答次難云「不墮世論妄想數」者，即外道有無分別是妄想數。復自徵釋，謂不著二邊，以不著故，有無妄想所不能轉。良以自相境界非性，非性即空，何轉之有？又言覺自心現等者，既了諸法唯心，妄想復何所生？由不生故入三脫門，空者性空也，無相者相空也，無作者性相俱空，心無所作也。無作又曰無願，謂無願求也。

This reveals the true teaching. First, Mahāmati asks in objection whether what the Tathāgata speaks is also identical to worldly treatises; there are two challenges in all, as shown in the text. For instance, when broadly expounding various dharmas for the assemblies of gods and humans from other directions, these are spoken in accordance with the minds of others; would this not also be lacking the meaning of self-realization? How would it differ from the discourse of the worldly intellect of tīrthikas? In the reply, he first brushes aside the first objection, saying, 'I do not speak worldly treatises.' This is because worldly treatises speak of going and coming, whereas the Buddha speaks only of non-going and non-coming. 'Coming' being described as 'the assembly, convergence, and birth into destinies' means that with coming, causes and conditions harmonize and arise. 'Going' being described as 'dispersal and destruction' means that with going, conditions disperse and cease. What the Buddha speaks differs from this, saying that non-going and non-coming is non-arising and non-ceasing, which is what I have realized. In replying to the second challenge, 'does not fall into the category of the false conceptualizations of worldly treatises' refers to the tīrthikas' discriminations of existence and nonexistence being the category of false conceptualization. He again raises a question and explains it, stating that one does not cling to the two extremes; because of not clinging, the false conceptualizations of existence and nonexistence cannot turn it. This is truly because the realm of specific characteristics lacks self-nature; lacking self-nature, it is empty—how could there be any turning? Furthermore, in speaking of 'recognizing that it is the appearance of one's own mind,' etc.: once one understands that all dharmas are mind-only, how could false conceptualizations arise again? Because they do not arise, one enters the three doors of liberation: 'emptiness' is emptiness of nature, 'signlessness' is emptiness of characteristics, and 'wishlessness' means that both nature and characteristics are empty and the mind initiates nothing. Wishlessness (無作) is also called absence of vows (無願), meaning having no wishes or desires.