大般涅槃經義記 8.68

8.68

第二段中，約就青等破遣色性。破之云何？「非青、黃」等明色非有，「不離青」等彰色非無。是義云何？色者正以質礙為性，青、黃、赤等是色之相，相別礙通，彼青、黃等虛幻不真，如陽炎水，相有性無。性既不有，知復說何以為定礙？故非青等。即就青等義說為礙，故言不離。自下第三牒正破邪，「非有非無」是牒正也。非有牒前非地、水等，非青、黃等；非無牒前不離地等、不離青等。「云何當言色有自性」是破邪也。既非有無，云何有性？

In the second section, with respect to blue and so forth, he dismantles and dispels the nature of form. How does he dismantle it? "Not blue, yellow..." and so forth clarifies that form is not existent; "not separate from blue..." and so forth reveals that form is not nonexistent. What does this mean? Form takes material obstruction precisely as its nature, while blue, yellow, red, and so forth are the marks of form. The marks are distinct while obstruction is common to all; those [marks of] blue, yellow, and so forth are illusory and untrue, like water in a mirage: the mark exists, but the nature is nonexistent. Since the nature does not exist, what could one designate as definite obstruction? Therefore it is not blue and so forth. Yet in terms of the sense of blue and so forth it is said to be obstruction; hence it is said to be not separate. From here below, the third takes up the correct to refute the heterodox: "neither existent nor nonexistent" takes up the correct. "Neither existent" takes up the preceding not earth, water, and so forth, and not blue, yellow, and so forth; "nor nonexistent" takes up the preceding not separate from earth and so forth, and not separate from blue and so forth. "How could one say that form has an intrinsic nature?" refutes the heterodox: since it is neither existent nor nonexistent, how could it have an intrinsic nature?