瑜伽論記 9.182

9.182

如此等執，是即名為惡取空者，泰云：若說三性都無所有，何依他圓成處何有智，云何遍計執性故說為空。又釋，於依他性處是何，圓成實性者由何，遍計執性故空，測云：何處者嘖無依他何等者嘖無遍計，何故者嘖空所以。

Regarding "Such grasping is called grasping emptiness wrongly": Tai says: If one says that none of the three natures exists at all, in what place of the other-dependent and consummate could there be wisdom? How could it be said to be empty because of the imagined nature? Another explanation: In the place of the other-dependent nature, what is it? As for the consummate nature, by what is it empty due to the imagined nature? Ce says: "What place" rebukes the absence of the other-dependent; "which one" rebukes the absence of the imagined; "for what reason" rebukes the rationale for emptiness.