注大乘入楞伽經 8.25

8.25

四牒釋破第一始造即捨無常。謂諸外道所計，不出互、自、共三，為能造也。言「非大種互過大種，以各別故」者，謂堅濕等本無自性，其用互有相違，不能更互以造於色，故破云以各別故。如下偈曰「大種無自性」，又云「大種互相違，安能造於色」也。言「非自相造，以無異故」者，自，獨也。謂大種性本自無生，不能獨起以造於色，故破云以無異故。如下偈曰「大種本無生，故無所造色」也。言「非復共造，以乖離故」者，共者同和之義。謂四大種性自乖離、遞相凌滅，如水不容火等，豈能共同而造於色？故破云以乖離故。如下偈曰「火乃燒於色，水復為壞爛，風能令散滅，云何色得生」也。當知非是始造無常者，結破也。

The fourth [section] cites and explains the refutation of the first [kind of impermanence]: impermanence in which things are discarded upon initial creation. What the non-Buddhists posit does not go beyond three ways in which things serve as producers: mutually, individually, and collectively. As for the statement 'it is not that the primary elements mutually exceed the primary elements, because they are distinct,' it means that solidity, wetness, and the rest originally have no self-nature, and their functions mutually conflict; they cannot reciprocally produce form. Therefore, the refutation states 'because they are distinct.' As the verse below says, 'The primary elements have no self-nature,' and also says, 'The primary elements mutually conflict; how could they produce form?' As for the statement 'nor do they produce through their individual characteristics, because there is no difference,' 'individual' means solitary. It means that the nature of the primary elements is originally unarisen; they cannot arise singly to produce form. Therefore, the refutation states 'because there is no difference.' As the verse below says, 'The primary elements are originally unarisen, hence there is no produced form.' As for the statement 'nor do they produce collectively, because they are separated,' 'collectively' means concordant combination. The nature of the four primary elements is inherently discordant and mutually destructive—just as water cannot tolerate fire—so how could they collectively produce form? Therefore, the refutation states 'because they are separated.' As the verse below says, 'Fire burns form, water rots it, and wind can scatter and destroy it; how could form come to be produced?' 'One should know that this is not impermanence upon initial creation' concludes the refutation.