淨名玄論 1.50

1.50

十、明絕一假有。上雖明假有絕四句，未辨絕於假有，是故今明絕於假有。論云「因緣所生法，我說即是空」，故知假有無所有。次云「假有若非有，假有便是無」，故今明，假有若是有，假有可言無。假有竟非有，故假有亦非無。次云。「若爾，世諦有假有，真諦無假有」，即假有亦有亦無。是故今明，若有有有無，可有亦有亦無。竟無有無無，即何有亦有亦無？次云「若假有不得亦有亦無，便是非有非無」，故今明，有無成者可有非有非無，竟無亦有亦無，云何有非有非無？次云「若爾者，即非四句之內，應有四句之外」，故今明，若在四句之內，可在四句之外。既非四句之內，豈在四句外耶？次云「若非四句內外，便應有此假有」，故今明雖不在四句內外，而假有宛然。雖假有宛然，而不在四句內外。問：此句與上一句四絕何異？答：前明假有絕性有四句，今辨絕假四句；前就世諦門絕，今就真諦門絕。是故異也。此之十門，乃是眾經之祕奧、群聖之良術、入道之內路、洗累之要門，坐禪之規模、敷講之弘範也。

Tenth, explaining the transcendence of a single conventional existence. Although it was previously explained that conventional existence transcends the catuṣkoṭi, the transcendence of conventional existence itself was not yet distinguished; therefore we now explain the transcendence of conventional existence. The treatise states: 'Phenomena arisen through causes and conditions, I declare to be emptiness.' Therefore we know that conventional existence is non-existent. Next, it is said: 'If conventional existence is not existent, conventional existence is simply nonexistent.' Therefore it is now explained: if conventional existence were existent, conventional existence could be called nonexistent. But conventional existence is ultimately not existent; therefore conventional existence is also not nonexistent. Next, it is said: 'If so, saṃvṛti-satya has conventional existence, and paramārtha-satya lacks conventional existence'—meaning conventional existence is both existent and nonexistent. Therefore it is now explained: if there were an existence of existence and a nonexistence of existence, there could be both existence and nonexistence. But since there is ultimately neither existence nor nonexistence, how could there be both existence and nonexistence? Next, it is said: 'If conventional existence cannot be both existent and nonexistent, it must be neither existent nor nonexistent.' Therefore it is now explained: only if existence and nonexistence were established could there be neither existence nor nonexistence. Since there is ultimately neither both existence nor nonexistence, how could there be neither existence nor nonexistence? Next, it is said: 'If so, then what is not within the catuṣkoṭi should be outside the catuṣkoṭi.' Therefore it is now explained: if it were within the catuṣkoṭi, it could be outside the catuṣkoṭi. Since it is not within the catuṣkoṭi, how could it be outside the catuṣkoṭi? Next, it is said: 'If it is neither within nor outside the catuṣkoṭi, then this conventional existence must exist.' Therefore it is now explained: although it is neither within nor outside the catuṣkoṭi, conventional existence is clearly present. Although conventional existence is clearly present, it is neither within nor outside the catuṣkoṭi. Question: How does this phrase differ from the previous 'single phrase transcending four'? Answer: Previously it was explained that conventional existence transcends the catuṣkoṭi of intrinsic existence; now it is distinguished that it transcends the catuṣkoṭi of convention. Previously it was transcended with respect to the gate of saṃvṛti-satya; now it is transcended with respect to the gate of paramārtha-satya. Therefore they differ. These ten gates are indeed the secret depths of all the sūtras, the fine skill of all the sages, the inner path for entering the Way, the essential gate for cleansing defilements, the pattern for seated meditation, and the vast paradigm for delivering teachings.