瑜伽論記 12.341

12.341

言復應在內如理思惟乃至除此無有若增者，制立眼若為一事也，名想施設總是眼名之差別也。及此唯事於中假立名想施設是第二事，唯有依他眼根離言說事於中假立眼等名字名不能及。若尋眼名執有眼體是遍計所執畢竟無體故說眼空。

As for "furthermore, one should inwardly reflect properly... down to: other than this, there is no addition": positing the eye is one thing; names, concepts, and designations are altogether distinctions of the name of the eye. And this mere entity, upon which names, concepts, and designations are nominally established, is the second thing; there is only the dependent (paratantra) eye faculty, an entity apart from language, upon which names such as "eye" are nominally established, which names cannot reach. If, pursuing the name of the eye, one clings to an eye-entity, that is the imagined nature (parikalpita), which is utterly devoid of an entity; therefore, the eye is said to be empty.