瑜伽論記 19.371

19.371

初問答中，章云：此有二問。一問不可言法性中有言說，云不可言，是故法性不可言說言不應道理。二問前幻化形喻一切法，彼雖所化類，非是實有。然有種種能造事是實，如以手巾化兔，所造兔雖非實能造手巾是實，所喻法中皆非是實故，譬喻亦爾不相似。答中乃至方便施設來答初問也。正立宗說，一切不可言時，不可言言亦已遮遣，其言在一切法內故也。為令覺知如是不可言義故，方便施設不可言言。然不可言言既不可得，故一切法不可言也。譬喻等故已下，答第二問，以喻喻法非不相似以喻所喻法中有真有俗，俗法無性，雖假名言非如彼性同於幻化無實性也。實諦之理不可言義，非不實有同於幻等，是故法喻亦相似。

In the first question and answer, the chapter says: Here there are two questions. The first asks: In the ineffable nature of phenomena there is verbal expression saying that it is ineffable; therefore, the statement that the nature of phenomena is ineffable is unreasonable. The second asks: Previously, the form of an illusory transformation was used to illustrate all phenomena; although those transformed things are not real existents, yet the manifold things capable of creating them are real, just as when a handkerchief is transformed into a hare, although the created hare is not real, the creating handkerchief is real; since within the exemplified phenomena none are real, the simile is also not analogous in this way. In the answer, down to 'conventional designation,' it answers the first question. When directly establishing the thesis and saying that all is ineffable, the statement 'ineffable' is also already negated, because that statement is included within all phenomena. In order to cause one to become aware of this ineffable meaning, the words 'ineffable' are conventionally designated. However, since the statement 'ineffable' is unfindable, all phenomena are ineffable. From 'Because of the simile, and so forth' below, it answers the second question: illustrating phenomena with a simile is not unanalogous, because within the simile and the exemplified phenomena there are the real and the conventional; conventional phenomena lack intrinsic nature, and although they are conventional names, they are not like that [parikalpita] nature, and are the same as an illusion in lacking a real nature. The principle of the truth of reality, the ineffable meaning, is not unreal, and is the same as an illusion and so forth; therefore the phenomenon and the simile are also analogous.