瑜伽論記 20.11

20.11

第三解知等門，如攝論云：應知者三性也，三種自性有無之理一切學者皆應遍知，若爾何故下問遍計所執何智所行為凡智耶？為聖智耶？答：非智所行，以無相故。解云：彼據遍計所執無有體相不成緣緣故。言所執都非凡聖智之所行，體性離無，故是學者所推求處，是故前說是所遍知，依他是染，有不實體，故應永斷，圓成應證。

In the third gate explaining knowing and so forth, as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: What should be known are the three natures; the principle of the existence and non-existence of the three intrinsic natures should be thoroughly known by all trainees. If so, why does it ask below: 'Which cognition's domain is the parikalpita nature? Is it the domain of ordinary cognition or the domain of noble cognition?' and answer: 'It is not the domain of cognition, because it is devoid of marks'? Solution: That is based on the parikalpita nature having no substantial mark and failing to constitute an objective condition; it says that what is grasped is not at all the domain of ordinary or noble cognition. Since its essential nature is apart from non-existence, it is that which is investigated by trainees; therefore it was previously said to be what should be thoroughly known. Paratantra is defiled and possesses an unreal substance, and therefore should be permanently severed; pariniṣpanna should be realized.