中觀論疏 2.10

2.10

次「不來不出」者，惑病無窮，不可備舉。世諦中道無量，亦不可具明。今更以二門頒其大要，即病無不破、中無不顯。惑者雖聞上六不，而終謂決定有果。既決定有果，若從外來必從內出，故次明不來不出。如計眾生苦樂萬物生滅皆從自在天來，謂外來義。復有外道計苦樂之果皆是我之自作、我之自受，故名內出。復有宿作外道，如須跋之流，計苦樂之果皆從往因、不由現緣，為內出義。復有外道謂男女和合生於眾生，四大共聚以生外物，名為外來。此以因為內、以緣為外。又如毘曇計木有火性，從於性火以成事火，為內出義。《成論》明木無火性，但假緣生，為外來義。若計有內火性、復假外緣，即具計來出。今明如此來出皆壞世諦因果，是故次明不來不出。問：世諦因果云何不來不出耶？答：因緣因果不可內外，故名中道。所以然者，論云「眾因緣生法，以果不偏在因故不內，不偏在緣故不外。」《淨名》云「法不屬因、不在緣故。」以不偏在二邊，故稱中道。問：何故但說八事？答：八事四對，一一相對病無不破、中無不顯，即義無不足。但以四對歷破眾計、歷明中道於義略圓，故但說八也。次明真諦具八不明真諦中道者，以空有為世諦、有空為真諦。以空有為世諦，世諦則是假生假滅，對世諦假生明真諦假不生、對世諦假滅明真諦假不滅，不生不滅為真諦中道。問：何以知二諦俱無生耶？答：《瓔珞經．佛母品》云「二諦者，不一不二、不常不斷、不來不出、不生不滅。」故知八不具二諦也。此論明大小二人俱亡失二諦：小乘執有撥空，故失於真諦；大乘人執空排有，故失於世諦。接此二失，仍牒八不，故知八不具足二諦。又大乘人執畢竟空無有世諦，既失世諦亦失第一義諦，是故今明雖畢竟無生而有二諦。問：但應直明二諦，何故乃明二諦俱無生耶？答：直明空有二諦者，容謂還具取前大小二人所明空有合成二諦，此即偏病不破、中道不顯，故今明二諦俱無生，即雙破二偏、具明中道。所以然者，以世諦無生故破於性生，即小乘執性有此病得除。以真諦無生明因緣生宛然即是無生，故大乘偏空病息。故知二諦無生霍破兩病。又以世諦無性生，有因緣假生，故世諦成中道；真諦無假生，明因緣假不生，真諦成中道。以具得顯二中道，所以明二諦俱不生。又由來但明一諦生、一諦不生，欲對破彼計，故明二諦俱無有生。又明二諦俱不生者，欲示一切法本來畢竟無生，令一切眾生悟無生忍，故明二諦俱無生。所以然者，夫心若有生即有所依，有所依即有所縛，有所縛不得離生老病死憂悲苦惱，尚不得二乘，何況佛道。若心無生即無所依，離一切縛即便得中道。故五十二賢聖皆就無生觀內分其階級，初信諸法本性無性，故名十信；稍析伏生心令不起動念故名為伏忍，即三十心人；以折伏生心不起動念，即無生稍明，順諸法無生不墮於生，故名為順忍，初地至六地也；生心動念不復現前，無生現前，故名無生忍，七地至九地也。生心動念畢竟寂滅，無生妙語了了分明，故稱寂滅忍，十地等覺妙覺地也。以階級無階級唯一無生觀，無階級階級故有五十二位不同。所以五十二位並作無生觀者，良由二諦本來無生，故因二諦無生發無生觀。如《涅槃》云「十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智」，即知八不是五十二賢聖之根本也。問：云何五十二賢聖皆悟二諦無生？答：以了世諦故一切性實有所得心畢竟不生，以了真諦故知因緣生即無生，於一切假生不復生心動念。總攝生病無出假實，於此二處不復動念，即悟無生法忍，故有一切賢聖也。問：世諦破性生滅，明不生不滅。真諦破假生滅，明不生不滅以不？答：正意則不然。世諦破實生滅，明不生不滅。真諦明假生宛然，即是無生，故不破也。所以經云「不壞假名而說諸法實相」，論云「因緣生法，我說即是空」，若破假生滅者，即違此經論。問：何故破性生辨無生，而假生即是無生？答：諸法畢竟無有性生，故五眼不見，但顛倒橫謂言有，所以須破性生既竟，始得辨因緣假生為佛菩薩世諦。此因緣假生為佛眼所見，云何破因緣世諦耶？但因緣生即寂滅性，故名為真諦無生，為真諦中道。問：舊何得云世諦破性生、真諦破假生耶？答：此據假病為言耳。本對性立假，而惑者復決定謂道理有此假，故成假生病。今破此假生病，故言破假耳，而不破因緣無所得假。故二諦俱破性假，凡有二義：若世諦破性即破而不收，真諦破假亦破亦收，破其能迷之情、收取所惑之假，故但除其病而不除其法。亦有二門：一無法可除，即破性實之法；二但除能迷之情、不除所迷之法，即真諦破假義也。問：若因緣假生即是無生故不破者，亦因緣性生即是無生亦應不破。答：因緣性如佛性法性等，此猶是假義耳。今取有所得生，是性生故生，不得是無生。如此之性即但破不收。問：何人執假生，而言真諦破假生？答：有二種人，一者不空假名二諦、二者空假名二諦，為此二人故明真諦破假。不空假人謂世諦空無性實生，而假生不可空。為此人故明世諦因緣，假生即是無生，何處有此假法不空？若有此假法不空者，須破此假法也。問：即此不空假名義，亦得是今世諦中道以不？答：亦有斯意。汝云空無性實故是真諦，有於假法名為世諦，此二諦猶是今之世諦義耳。以世諦是因緣假名，無有性實之法，云何乃用世諦之空為真諦空耶？問：觀由來義，亦同今說。世諦是三假，即無復性實；真諦是四絕，即不復有三假。此亦是二諦破假實義，與今何異也？答：淺深門自當具釋。由來雖言世諦是三假，今以無所得望之，終是性義，為今世諦所破。今明裁起一念作於生解，即是性義。何者？既起心作生解，心謂有此生，復起於生心，即是有所得，故名為性也。若聞生謂生是滅生，名為因緣生，而遂作因緣解，即成因緣病。須破此因緣，故破假實須望觀心精密投之，不爾還成舊義。二者空假名人謂空於假生方是無生，蓋是壞生而辨無生。為對此緣，故明假生即是無生，名為真諦。問：不生不滅云何是真諦中道？答：以有空為真諦，遠離生滅，故稱為中。既稱有空，則空不自空，故名為假，如世諦不異也。問：既云空有為世諦、有空為真諦，即二諦並是因緣假名。稟教之流聞有作有解、聞無作無解，即二諦並成性病。論主破此性實二諦，申明因緣假名二諦，即二諦俱破性。云何世諦破性、真諦破假？答：余年二十二，於紹隆寺以此義諮師。師云：「通論破假實，即具有四句。向所問者，即二諦俱破性，世諦破性生、真諦破性無生，故二諦俱是假也。二者二諦俱破假，由來有所得世諦是假故假，今明世諦是不假假，故世諦破假也。因緣不假假真諦，破由來假，故假真諦。」問：他不明真諦是假，何以破之？答：彼真諦雖非假，而假為真立名，此假名是名，故名則亦得真破假。又中假師聞假作假解，亦須破此假。師云：「中假師罪重，永不見佛。所以作此呵者，本為對性故說假，令其逈悟耳。而遂捨性存假，謂決定為是，心有所依，故永不見佛。宜須破之。」三者世諦破假、真諦破實，此正對由來義。由來世諦是三假、真諦四絕則非假，故今明世諦破此有所得假，始得辨世諦為假。問：云何破耶？答：世諦是假者，世諦何所待耶？若待真諦者，真諦非所待，世諦云何是能待？世諦既不待真諦，又不自待世諦，即知世諦非待。世諦非待，云何是假？今世諦既無此假，故云世諦破假。今之世諦，有不自有、由空故有，即世諦始成假也。真諦破實者，真不自真，名為俗真。真非俗真，則真不成真，故因緣假真破彼性實真。四者世諦破實、真諦破假，如前釋之。問：世諦破實而世諦是假，真諦破假即應真諦非假。答：真諦破假生滅，不言真諦破一切假。問：既具有四句，今何故言世諦破實、真諦破假耶？答：通論假實乃具四句。今欲釋二諦俱無生，故世諦無實生、真諦無假生，故得分二諦無生為異。若言世諦破實生、真諦破實不生，即破生復破不生，便不釋八不。是以二諦不得俱破實也。若世諦破假生、真諦破假不生，亦非釋八不義，故不得俱破假也。若世諦破假生、真諦破實不生，亦不釋八不。故四門之中但得世諦明無實生、真諦辨無假生耳。問：叵有真諦亦破實生以不？答：取其義意即亦有之，以計實無生既是有所得，猶是生義耳。但就外人一往立義，不言真諦是生，故真諦不破生也。

Next, regarding “neither coming nor going away”: the ailments of delusion are infinite and cannot be enumerated in full. The middle ways of conventional truth are also immeasurable and cannot be fully expounded. Now, by further presenting the broad essentials through two approaches, no ailment will go unrefuted, and no middle will remain unrevealed. Although the deluded hear the preceding six negations, they ultimately still claim that an effect definitely exists. Since an effect definitely exists, it must either come from outside or emerge from within; therefore, “neither coming nor going away” is explained next. For instance, those who postulate that the suffering and pleasure of sentient beings and the origination and cessation of the myriad things all come from Maheśvara hold the doctrine of coming from outside. Furthermore, there are non-Buddhists who postulate that the fruits of suffering and pleasure are all created by oneself and experienced by oneself, which is called emerging from within. Furthermore, there are non-Buddhists of prior action, such as the followers of Subhadra, who postulate that the fruits of suffering and pleasure all come from past causes and do not depend on present conditions; this is the doctrine of emerging from within. There are also non-Buddhists who say that the union of male and female produces sentient beings, and that the four great elements assemble together to produce external things, which is called coming from outside. This takes the cause as internal and the conditions as external. Furthermore, the Abhidharma postulates that wood possesses the nature of fire, and that phenomenal fire is produced from nature-fire; this is the doctrine of emerging from within. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* explains that wood has no nature of fire, but is merely produced dependently on conditions; this is the doctrine of coming from outside. If one postulates both an internal nature of fire and reliance on external conditions, then one completely postulates both coming and emerging. Now it is explained that such coming and emerging both destroy the conventional causality; therefore, “neither coming nor going away” is explained next. Question: How does conventional causality involve neither coming nor going away? Answer: Cause and effect through causes and conditions cannot be internal or external; therefore, it is called the middle way. Why is this? The treatise says, “With phenomena born of manifold causes and conditions, because the effect is not biased toward the cause, it is not internal; because it is not biased toward the conditions, it is not external.” The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says, “Because phenomena do not belong to causes and are not located in conditions.” Because it is not biased toward the two extremes, it is called the middle way. Question: Why speak only of eight things? Answer: The eight things form four pairs. In each and every pair, no ailment is unrefuted and no middle is unrevealed; thus, the meaning lacks nothing. Merely using four pairs to successively refute all postulations and successively clarify the middle way makes the meaning roughly complete; therefore, only eight are spoken of. Next, explaining that the ultimate truth possesses the eight negations to reveal the middle way of the ultimate truth: emptiness-existence is conventional truth, and existence-emptiness is ultimate truth. Since emptiness-existence is conventional truth, conventional truth is provisional origination and provisional cessation. Opposing the provisional origination of conventional truth, the provisional non-origination of ultimate truth is clarified; opposing the provisional cessation of conventional truth, the provisional non-cessation of ultimate truth is clarified. Neither origination nor cessation is the middle way of ultimate truth. Question: How is it known that both truths are free of origination? Answer: The “Buddha-Mother Chapter” of the *Yingluo jing* says: “The two truths are neither one nor two, neither permanent nor annihilated, neither coming nor going away, and neither arising nor ceasing.” Thus we know that the eight negations are fully present in both truths. This treatise explains that both the followers of the Great and Lesser [Vehicles] forfeit both truths: Hīnayāna adheres to existence and rejects emptiness, thereby losing the ultimate truth; Mahāyāna practitioners adhere to emptiness and push aside existence, thereby losing the conventional truth. Taking up these two errors, it still applies the eight negations; thus we know that the eight negations are complete with respect to both truths. Furthermore, Mahāyāna practitioners adhere to ultimate emptiness without having conventional truth; having lost conventional truth, they also lose the supreme truth. Therefore, it is now explained that although there is ultimately no origination, there are two truths. Question: One should simply elucidate the two truths directly; why go so far as to explain that both truths are free of origination? Answer: If one merely explained the two truths of emptiness and existence directly, it might be assumed that one is merely taking up again the emptiness and existence explained by those two followers of the Great and Lesser [Vehicles] and combining them into two truths. In that case, the one-sided ailments would not be refuted, and the middle way would not be revealed. Therefore, it is now explained that both truths are free of origination, thereby refuting both one-sided views and fully revealing the middle way. Why is this? Because the conventional truth is free of origination, intrinsic origination is refuted, and thus the Hīnayāna ailment of adhering to intrinsic existence is eliminated. Because the ultimate truth is free of origination, dependent origination is clearly shown to be precisely non-origination, and thus the Mahāyāna ailment of biased emptiness is pacified. Therefore, we know that the two truths being free of origination completely shatters both ailments. Moreover, because conventional truth is free of intrinsic origination and has dependent provisional origination, conventional truth accomplishes the middle way; because ultimate truth is free of provisional origination and clarifies that dependent origination is provisional non-origination, ultimate truth accomplishes the middle way. Because both middle ways are fully revealed, it is explained that both truths are without origination. Furthermore, formerly they only explained that one truth originates and one truth does not originate; wishing to refute that postulation, it is explained that neither of the two truths has origination. Moreover, explaining that neither of the two truths originates is intended to show that all phenomena are originally and ultimately without origination, causing all sentient beings to awaken to the patience of non-arising; hence it is explained that both truths are free of origination. Why is this? If the mind has origination, it has that which it relies upon; if it has that which it relies upon, it has that by which it is bound; if it has that by which it is bound, it cannot escape birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, and distress, and cannot even attain the two vehicles, much less the Buddha path. If the mind is without origination, it has nothing to rely upon; freed from all bonds, it immediately attains the middle way. Therefore, the fifty-two sages and worthies all distinguish their stages within the contemplation of non-origination: first, having faith that all phenomena are by their fundamental nature devoid of intrinsic nature, they are called the Ten Faiths; gradually subduing the arising mind so that it does not stir up conceptual thoughts is called subduing patience, which refers to the people of the Thirty Minds; because subduing the arising mind so that it does not stir up conceptual thoughts makes non-origination somewhat clear, and accords with the non-origination of all phenomena without falling into origination, it is called compliant patience, which is from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi; when the arising mind and stirring thoughts no longer appear before one, and non-origination appears before one, it is called the patience of non-arising, from the seventh bhūmi to the ninth bhūmi. When the arising mind and stirring thoughts are completely extinguished, and the wondrous understanding of non-origination is distinctly clear, it is called the patience of extinction, which is the tenth bhūmi, equal awakening, and wondrous awakening stages. Because gradations are without gradations, there is only a single contemplation of non-origination; because of gradations without gradations, there are the differences of the fifty-two stages. The reason why all fifty-two stages practice the contemplation of non-origination is truly because the two truths are originally without origination; thus, based on the non-origination of the two truths, they generate the contemplation of non-origination. As the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says, “The twelve links of dependent origination neither arise nor cease, and can give rise to contemplative wisdom.” Thus we know that the eight negations are the foundation of the fifty-two sages and worthies. Question: How do the fifty-two sages and worthies all awaken to the non-origination of the two truths? Answer: By comprehending conventional truth, the mind with an appropriation of any intrinsic reality ultimately does not arise; by comprehending ultimate truth, they know that dependent origination is precisely non-origination, and no longer give rise to conceptual thoughts regarding any provisional origination. The ailments of origination, taken together, do not go beyond the provisional and the real; when thoughts no longer stir regarding these two, one awakens to the patience of the non-arising of dharmas, and thus all sages and worthies exist. Question: Conventional truth refutes intrinsic origination and cessation, explaining neither arising nor ceasing. Does ultimate truth refute provisional origination and cessation, explaining neither arising nor ceasing, or not? Answer: The primary intention is not so. Conventional truth refutes real origination and cessation, explaining neither arising nor ceasing. Ultimate truth makes clear that provisional origination is plainly non-origination; hence it is not refuted. Therefore, the sūtra says: “Without destroying provisional designations, the true mark of all phenomena is expounded.” The treatise says: “Phenomena born of causes and conditions—I declare them to be precisely emptiness.” If one were to refute provisional origination and cessation, one would contradict these sūtras and treatises. Question: Why is it that intrinsic origination is refuted to explain non-origination, while provisional origination is precisely non-origination? Answer: All phenomena are ultimately devoid of intrinsic origination, and therefore the five eyes do not see it; it is merely inverted crosswise thinking that calls it existent. Therefore, intrinsic origination must be refuted first, and only then can dependent provisional origination be established as the conventional truth of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. This dependent provisional origination is seen by the Buddha eye; how could one refute the conventional truth of causes and conditions? It is just that dependent origination is precisely the nature of quiescent extinction; therefore, it is called the non-origination of ultimate truth, which is the middle way of ultimate truth. Question: How could the older [masters] say that conventional truth refutes intrinsic origination and ultimate truth refutes provisional origination? Answer: This is spoken with reference to the ailment regarding the provisional. Originally, the provisional was established in opposition to intrinsic nature, but the deluded further decidedly claimed that this provisional exists in principle; thus it became the ailment of provisional origination. Now, this ailment of provisional origination is refuted, which is why it is said that the provisional is refuted; it does not refute the dependent provisional of non-appropriation. Therefore, the two truths both refuting intrinsic nature and the provisional has, in general, two senses: if conventional truth refutes intrinsic nature, it refutes without preserving; if ultimate truth refutes the provisional, it both refutes and preserves—refuting the sentiment capable of delusion, but preserving the provisional that was deludedly grasped; thus it only removes the ailment and does not remove the phenomenon. There are also two approaches: first, there is no phenomenon to be removed, which is refuting the real phenomenon of intrinsic nature; second, only removing the sentiment capable of delusion while not removing the phenomenon deludedly grasped, which is the sense of ultimate truth refuting the provisional. Question: If dependent provisional origination is precisely non-origination and therefore not refuted, then dependent intrinsic origination being precisely non-origination should also not be refuted. Answer: The nature of causes and conditions, like Buddha-nature and Dharma-nature, is still only a provisional sense. What is taken here is an origination with appropriation, which is origination because of intrinsic origination, and cannot be non-origination. Such intrinsic nature is merely refuted and not preserved. Question: What kind of person adheres to provisional origination such that it is said that ultimate truth refutes provisional origination? Answer: There are two kinds of people: first, those of the two truths of non-empty provisional designations; second, those of the two truths of empty provisional designations. It is for these two kinds of people that ultimate truth is explained as refuting the provisional. The person of non-empty provisionality claims that conventional truth is empty of real intrinsic origination, but that provisional origination cannot be emptied. For this person, it is explained that the conventional truth of causes and conditions—provisional origination—is precisely non-origination; where is there any such provisional phenomenon that is non-empty? If there were such a provisional phenomenon that is non-empty, this provisional phenomenon would have to be refuted. Question: Can this very doctrine of non-empty provisional designations also be the present middle way of conventional truth, or not? Answer: There is also this intention. You say that being empty of real intrinsic nature is ultimate truth, and having provisional phenomena is called conventional truth; these two truths are still merely the meaning of the present conventional truth. Since conventional truth is dependent provisional designation and devoid of real intrinsic phenomena, how can one use the emptiness of conventional truth as the emptiness of ultimate truth? Question: Observing the traditional doctrine, it also agrees with what is said now. Conventional truth is the three provisionals, and thus is no longer real intrinsic nature; ultimate truth is the four severances, and thus no longer has the three provisionals. This is also the sense in which the two truths refute the provisional and the real; how does it differ from the present [view]? Answer: The shallow and deep approaches will naturally be fully explained. Although the traditional view says that conventional truth is the three provisionals, when viewed now from [the standpoint of] non-appropriation, it is ultimately an intrinsic nature view, and is refuted by the present conventional truth. Now it is explained that the very arising of a single thought making an understanding of origination is precisely an intrinsic nature view. Why? Since one gives rise to a thought making an understanding of origination, the mind deems that this origination exists, and further gives rise to an arising mind; this is having an appropriation, and therefore it is called intrinsic nature. If, hearing of origination, one says that origination is the origination of cessation and calls it dependent origination, and then forms an understanding of dependent origination, this becomes the ailment of dependent origination. One must refute this dependent origination; therefore, refuting the provisional and the real must be applied meticulously with reference to the contemplative mind—otherwise, it merely reverts to the old doctrine. Second, the person of empty provisionality claims that only when provisional origination is emptied is there non-origination; this is discerning non-origination by destroying origination. In response to this capacity, it is clarified that provisional origination is precisely non-origination, which is called ultimate truth. Question: How is neither arising nor ceasing the middle way of ultimate truth? Answer: By taking existence-emptiness as ultimate truth, it is far removed from origination and cessation, and therefore called middle. Since it is called existence-emptiness, emptiness is not empty of itself, and therefore called provisional, not different from conventional truth. Question: Since you say that emptiness-existence is conventional truth and existence-emptiness is ultimate truth, both truths are dependent provisional designations. When people who receive the teaching hear of existence, they make an understanding of existence, and when they hear of non-existence, they make an understanding of non-existence; thus, both truths become ailments of intrinsic nature. The author of the treatise refutes these two truths of real intrinsic nature and elucidates the two truths of dependent provisional designation; that is, both truths refute intrinsic nature. Why do you say that conventional truth refutes intrinsic nature and ultimate truth refutes the provisional? Answer: When I was twenty-two years old, I consulted my master on this meaning at Shaolong Monastery. The master said: “Speaking comprehensively of refuting the provisional and the real, there are four propositions. What you asked just now is that both truths refute intrinsic nature: conventional truth refutes intrinsic origination, and ultimate truth refutes intrinsic non-origination; therefore, both truths are provisional. Second, both truths refute the provisional: the traditional conventional truth of appropriation was provisional because of the provisional, whereas now it is explained that conventional truth is the non-provisional provisional; therefore, conventional truth refutes the provisional. The dependent non-provisional provisional is the ultimate truth, refuting the traditional provisional; hence it is the provisional ultimate truth.” Question: Others do not explain ultimate truth as provisional; why refute it? Answer: Although their ultimate truth is not provisional, the provisional establishes a name for the ultimate; this provisional designation is a name, and therefore by name, the ultimate can also refute the provisional. Furthermore, masters of the middle and provisional make an understanding of provisionality upon hearing of the provisional; one must also refute this provisional. The master said: “The fault of masters of the middle and provisional is grave; they will never see the Buddha. The reason for making this rebuke is that the provisional was originally spoken in opposition to intrinsic nature to make them awaken completely. Yet they then discarded intrinsic nature and preserved the provisional, deeming it to be definitely correct; their minds had that which they relied upon, and therefore they will never see the Buddha. It should properly be refuted.” Third, conventional truth refutes the provisional, and ultimate truth refutes the real; this directly opposes the traditional doctrine. Traditionally, conventional truth is the three provisionals, and ultimate truth, being the four severances, is not provisional. Therefore, it is now explained that conventional truth refutes this provisional of appropriation, and only then can conventional truth be distinguished as provisional. Question: How is it refuted? Answer: If conventional truth is provisional, what does conventional truth depend on? If it depends on ultimate truth, ultimate truth is not what is depended upon; how could conventional truth be that which depends? Since conventional truth does not depend on ultimate truth, nor does it depend on conventional truth itself, we know that conventional truth does not depend. If conventional truth does not depend, how is it provisional? Now that conventional truth has no such provisional, it is said that conventional truth refutes the provisional. The present conventional truth—existence does not exist of itself, but exists through emptiness—is when conventional truth first becomes provisional. As for ultimate truth refuting the real: the ultimate is not ultimate of itself; it is called conventional-ultimate. If the ultimate is not conventional-ultimate, then the ultimate does not become the ultimate; therefore, the dependent provisional ultimate refutes their real intrinsic ultimate. Fourth, conventional truth refutes the real, and ultimate truth refutes the provisional, as explained previously. Question: Conventional truth refutes the real and conventional truth is provisional; then ultimate truth refuting the provisional should mean that ultimate truth is not provisional. Answer: Ultimate truth refutes provisional origination and cessation; it does not say that ultimate truth refutes all provisionals. Question: Since there are four propositions, why do you now say that conventional truth refutes the real and ultimate truth refutes the provisional? Answer: Speaking comprehensively of the provisional and the real, there are indeed four propositions. Now, wishing to explain that both truths are free of origination, conventional truth is without real origination and ultimate truth is without provisional origination; thus the non-origination of the two truths can be distinguished as different. If one were to say that conventional truth refutes real origination and ultimate truth refutes real non-origination, then refuting origination and then further refuting non-origination would fail to explain the eight negations. For this reason, the two truths cannot both refute the real. If conventional truth refutes provisional origination and ultimate truth refutes provisional non-origination, that too is not explaining the meaning of the eight negations; hence they cannot both refute the provisional. If conventional truth refutes provisional origination and ultimate truth refutes real non-origination, that too does not explain the eight negations. Therefore, among the four approaches, it can only be that conventional truth clarifies the absence of real origination, and ultimate truth discerns the absence of provisional origination. Question: Could it be that ultimate truth also refutes real origination, or not? Answer: Taking the purport of the meaning, it indeed also has it, since postulating a real non-origination, being an appropriation, is still an origination view. However, provisionally following the external opponent's established doctrine, they do not say that ultimate truth is origination; therefore, ultimate truth does not refute origination.