瑜伽論記 12.344

12.344

下問答辨，何以故者，何以眼名所說非眼自性故。非於中乃至少有眼覺而能轉故者，尋名執眼，非離眼名生於眼覺，明知離名無眼自性，此順釋也。若有此事乃至但於此事有眼覺轉者，若眼名下有實眼體稱眼名者，但緣眼體應生眼覺，何須更待眼名方生覺。然無如是乃至眼假施設者，客猶是假，是故此中唯於假立法相理中假立眼名想施設，無別所詮眼自性也。汝既如是乃至當得者，汝既思惟內眼知無，應思眼名唯是假設當生當得，上明眼空。

Below, it distinguishes via question and answer. As for "why is that?": why is that which is expressed by the name "eye" not the intrinsic nature of an eye? As for "it is not the case that an awareness of the eye can operate therein in the slightest...": if one clings to an eye by pursuing its name, it is not the case that apart from the name "eye" an awareness of the eye arises; hence one clearly knows that apart from the name there is no intrinsic nature of an eye. This is an explanation in positive sequence. As for "if there were such an entity... down to: an awareness of an eye would operate merely with respect to this entity": if under the name "eye" there were a real entity of an eye corresponding to the name "eye", then merely by taking the eye-entity as an objective support, an awareness of an eye should arise; why would it still need to depend on the name "eye" for the awareness to arise? As for "yet it is not so... down to: the nominal designation of an eye": "adventitious" still means provisional. Therefore, herein, merely within the principle of nominally established characteristics of dharmas are the name, concept, and designation of an eye nominally established; there is no separate intrinsic nature of an eye that is expressed. As for "once you have thus... down to: you shall attain": once you have reflected on the internal eye and known its non-existence, you should reflect that the name of the eye is merely a provisional designation, which will arise and will be attained. The above explains the emptiness of the eye.