A Tibetan misunderstanding of Skt.?

[jonathan.silk at wmich.edu]

I have not yet been able to check many editions of the Kanjur, but the
passage which I refer to appears in sTog dkon brtsegs, ca 442a5-7, Peking zi
283a7-b1:  bcom ldan 'das rnal 'byor spyod pa gang 'dod chags dang / zhe
sdang dang
 / gti mug las gud du stong pa nyid tshol ba de ni rnal 'byor la mi spyod pa
lags te / [P lags so //] rnal 'byor ma lags [P legs] pa'o // de ci'i slad du
zhe na
 / bcom ldan 'das 'dod chags dang / zhe sdang dang / gti mug las gud du stong
pa nyid btsal bar bgyi ba ma mchis te / bcom ldan 'das 'dod chags dang / zhe
sdang
 dang / gti mug nyid stong pa lags so //.  

-- By the way, this is the Acintyabuddhavi"sayanirde"sa.

I tentatively translate:

"Blessed One, the yogaacaara who pursues emptiness separately from lust,
hatred and delusion is one who does not practice (*Ccar) yoga.  It is not
fitting (?). 
 Why?  Blessed One, emptiness is not to be sought separately from lust,
hatred and delusion.  Blessed One, lust, hatred and delusion *are*
emptiness."

Chinese is found at T. 310 (35) (XI) 566c17-20.  It reads:  "Blessed One, if
a practitioner (*yogaacaara) seeks emptiness separately from the defilements,
then 
this is not appropriate (*na yujyate).  How can there be emptiness distinct
from the defilements?  If one contemplates the defilements, just this (they?)
is (ar
e?) emptiness; and this is correct cultivation."

There is little question about the Chinese expression "this is not
appropriate"; it almost certainly renders *na yujyate.

So, I think this must in one way or another be what is intended.  What I
wonder about is whether rnal 'byor, which is standard for yoga, is ever used
for forms of yuj  (By the way, the *Ccar above is supposed to be * plus root
sign plus car).  The ma in my expression must be a neagative; reading rnal
'byor ma is impossible.

If o someone could come up with a parallel, that would be great.

Jonathan