瑜伽論記 22.492

22.492

下釋所以，且依勝義，彼不可得，況其滅道，或有或無者，勝義諦中假名如來本不可得，況其滅後得說有無，故論說云：真諦有為空，如幻緣生故。無為無有實不起似空華。言若依世俗至何有無等者，若就世俗道中，於有為行立如來者，如來滅後，行體可無，欲就何處假立如來，如來既無，行論有無。若於涅槃至施設為有，不應道理等者，涅槃乃由無行所顯，不可說有，何得就彼以立如來，亦復不應施設，非有勿當損毀施設妙有涅槃之體，既不可說有不可說無，行得就之施設如來辨有無體。又此涅槃已下，辨涅槃異名，涅槃正是現量得證，云何說言非現量所量？解云：正是無分別定現量所量，今簡非散心五識現量所得，故云現量、所不量。

Below, it explains the reason: 'For the time being, relying on the ultimate truth, that [Tathāgata] cannot be apprehended; how much less could his path of cessation be either existent or non-existent?' In the ultimate truth, the conventionally designated Tathāgata fundamentally cannot be apprehended; how much less could one speak of existence or non-existence after his cessation? Therefore the treatise says: 'In the ultimate truth, conditioned things are empty, because they arise from conditions like an illusion; unconditioned things have no substantiality, not arising, like flowers in the sky.' Regarding the phrase 'If relying on conventional truth... how could there be existence or non-existence, etc.': if according to the conventional path, one establishes a Tathāgata upon conditioned formations, then after the Tathāgata passes into cessation, the substance of conditioned formations can be non-existent; where would one conventionally establish a Tathāgata? Since the Tathāgata does not exist, how could one discuss existence or non-existence? Regarding 'If based on nirvāṇa... to designate him as existent does not accord with reason, etc.': nirvāṇa is manifested by the absence of conditioned formations and cannot be said to be existent; how could one establish a Tathāgata based upon it? Nor should one designate it as non-existent, lest one disparage and damage the substance of nirvāṇa designated as wondrous existence. Since it cannot be spoken of as existent and cannot be spoken of as non-existent, how could one designate a Tathāgata based upon it to determine the essence of existence or non-existence? Moreover, from 'this nirvāṇa' onward, it distinguishes alternative names for nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is precisely realized through direct perception; why does it say 'not measured by direct perception'? The explanation is: it is precisely measured by the direct perception of non-conceptual concentration; here it excludes being attained by the direct perception of the distracted mind and the five consciousnesses; hence it says 'not measured by direct perception'.