瑜伽師地論略纂 5.82

5.82

「何故此中先說空性」等者，第三段釋三次第。此意問言：苦四行中先說無常、苦，後說空、無我，今於此中先說空行，後無願行，方說無常等，豈不相違？此意答言：十六行中先無常者，見道已前，先觀無常乃至無我；入真見道，依此前觀故，先無常，後說無我。入見道後，初證無我，後於三界方不願求，無常、苦觀方得清淨，故此等持，先說於空，次明無願。故此次第，兩義不同。　又問：何故此中先陳無願，次說無相，《顯揚》第二先說無相，後陳無願耶？答：此說要於三界先不願求，方於無相圓證清淨，故先無願，後說無相。初證二空無，即達無我有，故於空後即說無相，方令無願圓證清淨。此依後時，無相圓滿；彼依初時，無願圓滿，故不相違。

"Why is emptiness explained first here..." and so forth: the third section explains the sequence of the three. The intended question is: Among the four practices of suffering, impermanence and suffering are explained first, and emptiness and non-self are explained later; now why is the practice of emptiness explained first here, followed by the practice of wishlessness, and only then are impermanence and so forth explained—does this not contradict [the former]? The intended answer is: Among the sixteen practices, impermanence is first because prior to the path of seeing, one first observes impermanence up through non-self; entering the true path of seeing relies on this prior observation, and therefore impermanence comes first and non-self is explained later. After entering the path of seeing, one first realizes non-self, and afterwards one does not wish for or seek anything in the three realms, and the observation of impermanence and suffering only then attains purification; therefore, among these samādhis, emptiness is explained first and wishlessness is elucidated next. Therefore, this sequence has two different rationales. Further question: Why is wishlessness stated first here and signlessness explained next, whereas fascicle 2 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā explains signlessness first and states wishlessness later? Answer: This treatise states that one must first not wish for or seek anything in the three realms, and only then does one completely realize purification in the signless; therefore wishlessness comes first and signlessness is explained later. [That treatise says that] upon first realizing the non-existence of the two emptinesses, one immediately penetrates the existence of non-self; therefore immediately after emptiness it explains signlessness, and only then causes wishlessness to completely realize purification. This treatise relies on the later time when signlessness is perfected; that treatise relies on the initial time when wishlessness is perfected; therefore, they do not contradict each other.