瑜伽論記 13.372

13.372

言有共相觀識非不緣彼境界而轉者，明此無我義，通名共觀心緣，故知意識緣無得生此無我觀，若聞思作，即是比量。修慧心中有其二說：一解：欲入觀前，方便聞思心中作無我，是其共相正是比量，正入修慧觀無我時，是其現量，現量一一別證諸法無我而言共者從方便為名。二解：修慧正證無我，實是別證，自相境界，但以諸法無我相似所以名共（基云：）此無我本質無，如正智，即緣彼無顯得真如，如加行智，即亦有影像，當必據本若無影像言有，今以本質破外人。

Regarding the statement "Consciousness contemplating common characteristics does not turn without taking that objective sphere as its condition": this clarifies that this meaning of non-self is generally termed the common contemplative mind taking an object, so we know that the mental consciousness arises taking non-existence as its object. This contemplation of non-self, if produced by hearing and reflection, is an inference (anumāna). Within the mind of wisdom arisen from cultivation (bhāvanā-mayī prajñā), there are two explanations: The first explanation: Prior to wishing to enter contemplation, during the preparatory stages of hearing and reflection, one generates non-self in the mind; this is its common characteristic and is precisely an inference. When directly entering the wisdom arisen from cultivation to contemplate non-self, it is direct perception (pratyakṣa); this direct perception individually and distinctly realizes the non-self of all phenomena, and its being called 'common' derives its name from the preparatory stage. The second explanation: The wisdom arisen from cultivation directly realizes non-self; in reality it is distinct realization, an objective sphere of particular characteristics (svalakṣaṇa), but because the non-self of all phenomena is similar, it is therefore called 'common'. (Ji says:) This non-self lacks an external archetype; like fundamental correct wisdom, it takes that non-existence as its object to reveal tathatā; like preparatory wisdom, it also has a mental image. It definitely relies on the archetype being non-existent while the mental image is said to exist. Now he refutes the outsider with the archetype.