瑜伽論記 18.217

18.217

與有為法其相異故，謂為無異便為戲論非所戲論者，可知。總如前說二種因故，亦異不異，不應理者，非第三執。由有為滅證涅槃故至不應道理者，非第四執，汝執涅槃都無所有故，說非有異非無異者，即是謗無不應道理。

"Because its characteristics differ from conditioned phenomena, to say it is non-different is conceptual proliferation, not non-conceptual proliferation"—this is understandable. In short, based on the two kinds of causes previously explained, holding that it is both different and non-different is illogical—this refutes the third attachment. From "Because nirvāṇa is realized through the cessation of conditioned phenomena" up to "is illogical"—this refutes the fourth attachment: because you hold that nirvāṇa is completely non-existent, saying it is neither different nor non-different is denigration into non-existence, which is illogical.