瑜伽師地論略纂 10.88

10.88

論解惡趣空中，「由彼故空，亦不信受，於此而空，亦不信受」者，謂真實義由遍計所執無故名空，於此依他、圓成上遍計所執空，二俱不信，此名惡趣空。何以故？由遍計所執彼實是無，由依他、圓成此實是有，若作此理，汝可說空。若說一切依他、圓成都無所有，依何處所，何有此空？何故名空？以無依處及不分別，知遍計空故。汝亦不應言由遍計所執此，於依他、圓成等此，既說為空，以撥無依他等故，故無依處及所計空體。以不解故，言名惡取空者。善取空者，謂由於依他性此故，彼遍計所執空，即由所執彼無故，正觀為空，以見依他時，知無所執故。復由依他相此故，餘圓成實是有，即由圓成餘故，如實知有。

When explaining the wrongly conceived emptiness, the treatise says, "They do not believe in emptiness on account of that, nor do they believe in emptiness with respect to this." This means that the real meaning is called empty because of the non-existence of parikalpita-svabhāva; and with respect to this paratantra and pariniṣpanna, parikalpita-svabhāva is empty; yet they do not believe in either of these two—this is called wrongly conceived emptiness. Why? Because that parikalpita-svabhāva is truly non-existent, and this paratantra and pariniṣpanna are truly existent; if one adopts this principle, you may speak of emptiness. If one says that all paratantra and pariniṣpanna are completely non-existent, then relying on what locus could this emptiness exist? Why would it be called empty? Because there would be no locus of reliance, and without distinguishing, one would not know that parikalpita is empty. You also should not say that on account of this parikalpita-svabhāva, with respect to this paratantra and pariniṣpanna, it is already spoken of as empty, because by denying paratantra and so forth, there would be no locus of reliance and no substance of the conceptualized emptiness. Because of failing to understand this, it is called wrongly conceived emptiness. One who correctly conceives emptiness means: because of this paratantra-svabhāva, that parikalpita-svabhāva is empty; precisely because that conceptualized is non-existent, one correctly contemplates it as empty, for when seeing paratantra, one knows there is no conceptualized nature. Furthermore, because of this characteristic of paratantra, the remaining pariniṣpanna exists; precisely because of the remainder that is pariniṣpanna, one truly knows it to exist.