瑜伽論記 19.460

19.460

第十一經中，景云：此明真如法中遠離十二處，總都不依彼三無性說，問設依真如法中遠離十二處相，依三性說有何過耶？如彼真如法中，遍計所執眼永寂滅遠離遍計所執色想，乃至言永寂滅遠離想，亦離遍計所執？解云：三無性觀在方便道，真如觀諸法永寂，不作無相無生等觀，若就義說真如法中離遍計所執十二處，總亦得說為相無自性。然依經中，有無性言，方得依經說為無性，經中但言眼等寂滅遠離諸想，竟不說有無性性言，故論主云：都不依三無性說，即知三無性觀在加行道，根本觀中，不作無性性之解。

In the eleventh sūtra, Jing says: This clarifies that within the phenomenon of tathatā one is far removed from the twelve āyatanas, and it is altogether not spoken based on those three non-natures. Question: If one were to base it on being far removed from the characteristics of the twelve āyatanas within the phenomenon of tathatā, what fault would there be in speaking based on the three natures? For instance, within that phenomenon of tathatā, the parikalpita eye is eternally tranquil and far removed from parikalpita notions of form, up to saying it is eternally tranquil and far removed from notions—is this also removed from the parikalpita? Explanation: The contemplation of the three non-natures belongs to the path of expedients. The contemplation of tathatā sees all phenomena as eternally tranquil, and does not form contemplations of signlessness, non-production, and so forth. If explained in terms of doctrine, being removed from the parikalpita twelve āyatanas within tathatā could altogether also be spoken of as the lack of self-nature of characteristics. However, only when there are words of non-nature in the sūtra can one speak of non-nature based on the sūtra. The sūtra only says that the eye and so forth are tranquil and far removed from all notions, and never uses the word 'non-nature'; hence the author of the treatise says: 'altogether not spoken based on the three non-natures.' Thus one knows that the contemplation of the three non-natures is in the preparatory path, whereas in the fundamental contemplation, one does not form the understanding of non-nature.