瑜伽論記 9.185

9.185

問曰：若執依他圓成決定有而不遣者，此決定執依他圓成還復是病，云何是病真觀不遣，解云：但是搆畫執有二性，此已後入遍計造門，我今依教法相門中說彼外境離言自性證時不遣，如此等義不因三藏不可得同，今詳此破未必可爾，何者，夫三論云義以無據為宗，豈容自判依他圓成同彼遍計一向空無為三論宗以致妨難，然曉公言，三論為盪執著有見故，假破問遍破隨言之性義，瑜伽為遣惡取空執故藉立門廣有離言之法，假立不增隨言之性，假破不損離言之法，由是道理不相違背，此言可存。

Question: "If one grasps that the paratantra and the pariniṣpanna definitely exist and does not dispel them, this definitive grasping that the paratantra and the pariniṣpanna exist would still be an affliction. How could this affliction not be dispelled by true contemplation?" Answer: It is only when one conceptually constructs and grasps the two natures as existent that this has already entered into the gateway of conceptual elaboration through the parikalpita. Now, relying on the doctrinal teaching's approach of phenomenal characteristics (dharmalakṣaṇa), I state that when realizing the ineffable intrinsic nature of those external objects, they are not dispelled. Doctrines such as this could never be harmonized were it not for the Tripiṭaka Master [Xuanzang]. Now, examining this refutation, it may not necessarily be so. Why? Generally speaking, the doctrine of the Sanlun school takes groundlessness (non-abiding) as its fundamental tenet. How could it allow itself to determine that the paratantra and the pariniṣpanna are, like the parikalpita, exclusively empty and non-existent, making this the tenet of the Sanlun school and thereby inviting objections and difficulties? However, Venerable Wonhyo states: In order to sweep away views that cling to existence, the Sanlun school provisionally employs refutation and questioning to universally refute natures that accord with verbal expression; whereas the Yogācāra, in order to dispel the clinging to ill-grasped emptiness, relies on establishing teachings to broadly present ineffable phenomena. Provisional establishment does not add to the nature that accords with verbal expression, and provisional refutation does not diminish ineffable phenomena. By this principle they do not contradict each other. This statement may be preserved.