瑜伽論記 9.284

9.284

第四如實智中，景云：且如一色即是非有非無不二之義，以此一色法中，遍計所執色是非有性，依他起色是非無性，總此二義非有非無名為不二，遍計所執隨言說性不成實故非有，依他起離言說性實成立故非無，此就非有性非無性以明不二，次就二諦明非有色非無色以明不二，謂此遍計所執色空故。就勝義諦中，明非有色，此依他色因緣法有故，就世諦說非無色，道理遍計所執色就世諦理亦無有體，今作文綺互，故勝義諦中方說非有，依他因緣之色設在勝義諦中亦不除遣，以理事並行不相妨礙，亦以作文綺互，但就世諦以明非無，唯上二門類知有見無見等不二之義，謂依他色有體為緣能有於見，遍計色無體不能為緣能有於見名非有見，亦可云文略，具足應言有見非有見無見非無見，依二性道理以釋此文以明不二。

Regarding the fourth accurate cognition, Jing says: For instance, a single form has the non-dual meaning of being neither existent nor non-existent. Within this single phenomenon of form, the imagined form has the nature of non-existence, and the dependent form has the nature of not being non-existent; combining these two meanings, neither existent nor non-existent is called non-dual. The imagined nature, following verbal expression, is not genuinely established and is thus non-existent; the dependent nature, being free from verbal expression, is truly established and is thus not non-existent. This explains non-duality in terms of the nature of non-existence and the nature of not being non-existent. Next, it explains non-duality in terms of the two truths, as neither existent form nor non-existent form: because this imagined form is empty, with respect to ultimate truth it explains that it is not existent form; because this dependent form exists as a phenomenon arisen from causes and conditions, with respect to conventional truth it says it is not non-existent form. In principle, imagined form also has no entity with respect to conventional truth; here the phrasing is antithetically interwoven, so it is only in the ultimate truth that it is said to be non-existent. Even if the dependent form of causes and conditions were situated in ultimate truth, it would not be eliminated, because principle and phenomena operate simultaneously without obstructing each other. Also, because the phrasing is antithetically interwoven, it is only with respect to conventional truth that it is clarified as not non-existent. One can understand the non-dual meaning of having views and being without views and so forth solely by analogy with the above two gates: dependent form has an entity and serves as a condition capable of generating seeing; imagined form has no entity and cannot serve as a condition capable of generating seeing, which is called not having seeing. One may also say that the text is abbreviated; in full, it should say 'having seeing and not having seeing, without seeing and not without seeing,' interpreting this text based on the principle of the two natures to clarify non-duality.