瑜伽論記 19.437

19.437

今此文中，是初義也。真實義相所遠離俗法依他性，此由無勝義真如，故說勝義無性性，如觀行比丘，於大骨聚作假想觀，其觀既成欲捨不能得，乃至解云：於此假想觀骨聚作事非真實勝義，骨聚無性總恒無間轉，如是應知真觀依他性，非真實勝觀故，名勝義無性觀。然是俗觀非真也。遍計所執性非五事攝，五事非由自性性故說無自性。五事中，謂相名分別正智皆由二種無自性性。一、四種要眾緣生自然生，說無生自性為其性；二、四種是俗非真無勝義性，故說勝義無性性，真如一種有其實體，由勝義無俗性故說勝義無性性，不由無自真性性說無自性，是故世尊依此密意說言，我說一真諦更無第二真諦。舊梁攝論等名真實無性性，今名勝義無性性，以真實性是勝義諦攝，故名勝義諦攝，舊經名第一義諦。今經論名勝義諦也。今依此論會舊經論。真實無性者，一、依他非真實性，故說依他為真實性性以依他無真實為其性故；二、真實性非依他性為其性，故說真實無性性，依梁攝論乃說遣真實性得無真實性故名真實無性性者，錄文人誤也。

Now in this text, it is the first meaning. The conventional phenomena of the paratantra nature, which are distanced from the characteristics of real meaning, are spoken of as the nature of the non-nature of the ultimate because they lack the ultimate truth of tathatā. Just as a practitioner bhikṣu forms a provisional contemplation of a great heap of bones, and once that contemplation is accomplished, he wishes to abandon it but cannot, up to the explanation: 'Regarding this provisional contemplation of a heap of bones, what is engaged in is not the real ultimate; the lack of intrinsic nature of the heap of bones operates continuously without interruption.' In this way, one should know that the genuine contemplation of the paratantra nature is not a real ultimate contemplation, and is therefore called the contemplation of the non-nature of the ultimate. Yet it is a conventional contemplation, not an ultimate one. The parikalpita nature is not included in the five matters; the five matters are not spoken of as having no intrinsic nature by virtue of [lacking] their own intrinsic nature. Among the five matters, characteristics, names, discrimination, and correct knowledge all possess two kinds of non-intrinsic-natureness: first, these four must arise from multiple conditions [and lack] spontaneous arising, and are spoken of as having the non-intrinsic-nature of arising as their nature; second, these four are conventional, not real, and lack the nature of the ultimate, and therefore are spoken of as the nature of the non-nature of the ultimate. Tathatā alone has a real substantial entity; because the ultimate lacks conventional nature, it is spoken of as the nature of the non-nature of the ultimate, not because it lacks its own real nature. Therefore, the World-Honoured One, relying on this implicit intention, stated: 'I teach one real truth, and no second real truth.' In the old Liang Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts, it is called the 'nature of the non-nature of reality', whereas now it is called the 'nature of the non-nature of the ultimate'; because the nature of reality is subsumed under the truth of the ultimate, it is said to be subsumed under the truth of the ultimate. Old sūtras call it the truth of the primary meaning; current sūtras and treatises call it the truth of the ultimate. Now, relying on this treatise, we reconcile the old sūtras and treatises. As for 'real non-nature': first, the paratantra is not the nature of reality, so the paratantra is spoken of as having the nature of reality because the absence of reality in the paratantra serves as its nature; second, the nature of reality does not have the paratantra nature as its nature, and so is spoken of as the nature of the real non-nature. If, relying on the Liang Mahāyānasaṃgraha, one says that eliminating the nature of reality yields the absence of the nature of reality and is therefore called the nature of the real non-nature, this is an error by the copyist.