瑜伽論記 18.216

18.216

第三辨涅槃已四句。言若謂涅槃為有異者，當知此為不如理問等者，即彼有為理滅名為涅槃不得言異。若謂為無異者，若執涅槃有為不異不然，染淨既殊常無常別故。有無異者，第三句執亦有異亦無異也。非有非無異者，執第四句非有異非無異。當知皆是不如理問答者，此總非，何以故下釋其四句。由彼涅槃，唯有為滅所顯者，此明不異，與有為法其相異者，明非不異，依此二義為本，明離四執。唯有為滅之所顯謂有異者乃至便為戲論非所戲論者，涅槃與彼有為不定其相異故，說涅槃非所戲論，今說定異便為戲論非戲論法。

Third, the distinction of the four propositions regarding nirvāṇa. Regarding the statement, "If one asserts that nirvāṇa is different [from the conditioned], one should know that this is an improper question, etc.": the cessation of the principle of those very conditioned dharmas is called nirvāṇa, and one cannot say it is different. If one asserts that it is not different: grasping that nirvāṇa and the conditioned are not different is incorrect, because defilement and purity are distinct, and permanence and impermanence are different. "Is both different and not different": the third proposition grasps that it is both different and not different. "Is neither different nor not different": grasps the fourth proposition that it is neither different nor not different. "One should know that all these are improper questions and answers": this is a general refutation. Below "for what reason?", it explains the four propositions: "because that nirvāṇa is manifested only by the cessation of the conditioned" clarifies that it is not different; "its characteristics being different from conditioned dharmas" clarifies that it is not non-different. Relying on these two meanings as the basis, it clarifies freedom from the four attachments. Regarding from "asserting that what is manifested only by the cessation of the conditioned is different" up to "it becomes conceptual proliferation (prapañca), not that which is free from conceptual proliferation": because nirvāṇa is not definitively different in its characteristics from the conditioned, nirvāṇa is said to be not that which is subject to conceptual proliferation; now, asserting that it is definitively different constitutes conceptual proliferation, not the dharma free from conceptual proliferation.