中觀論疏 2.11

2.11

次不常不斷者，既聞真諦不生不滅，由來便謂有真諦天然四絕之理，有佛無佛性相常住是故常。而真諦絕於四句，此即為斷。今破此斷常，故云不斷不常。以非定有此真理故不常，不曾有四句可絕故云不斷，名為中道。不一不異者，惑者既聞不生不滅、不斷不常，便謂真諦理無差別，故名為一。即開善用之。光宅謂真理亦有淺深，故累隔真諦，故名為異。今俱破之，故云不一不異。所以經云「無色無形對，一相所謂無相。」以一相故不可為異，以無相故不可言一，不一不異名為中道。不來不出者，由來折俗得真，故名為來；從真出俗，目之為出。今破此來出，故明不來不出。問：何處作此釋？答《智度論》釋〈集散品〉解無為法有集散云「穿物得空，是無為之集。塞物失空，是無為之散。」集散即是來出義也。又空色不可一，故，空非色內而出；空色不可異，故，空非色外而來。不來不出為真諦中道。問：世諦假生滅即不生不滅為真諦中道者，亦得世諦假斷常即不斷不常為真諦中道耶？答：通即例之。但佛弟子許世諦是生滅，諱世諦是斷常，故非例也。一異來出即可通二義。

Next, regarding "neither annihilation nor permanence": once one hears that the ultimate truth is neither arising nor ceasing, one customarily claims that there is a naturally fourfold-transcending principle of ultimate truth, and that whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha its nature and characteristics abide permanently, so it is permanent; yet since the ultimate truth transcends the four alternatives (catuṣkoṭi), this is annihilation. Now, to refute this annihilation and permanence, it is said to be neither annihilation nor permanence. Because it is not definitively the case that this ultimate principle exists, it is not permanent; because there have never been four alternatives that could be transcended, it is said to be not annihilated—this is called the middle way. Regarding "neither unity nor difference": once confused people hear of neither arising nor ceasing, and neither annihilation nor permanence, they then claim that the principle of the ultimate truth has no distinction, and thus call it "unity." This is what Kaishan adopted. Guangzhai claimed that the ultimate principle also has shallowness and depth, and thus successive stages partition the ultimate truth, and thus called it "difference." Now both are refuted, and thus it is said to be neither unity nor difference. Therefore a sūtra says: "Without form and without sensory resistance, the single mark is the so-called marklessness." Because of the single mark, it cannot be different; because of marklessness, it cannot be called one; neither unity nor difference is called the middle way. Regarding "neither coming nor departing": customarily, analyzing the conventional to attain the ultimate is called "coming"; emerging from the ultimate into the conventional is termed "departing." Now to refute this coming and departing, it explains neither coming nor departing. Question: Where is such an explanation made? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, explaining the "Chapter on Aggregation and Dispersal" regarding how unconditioned dharmas have aggregation and dispersal, says: "Penetrating an object and obtaining empty space is the aggregation of the unconditioned. Obstructing an object and losing empty space is the dispersal of the unconditioned." Aggregation and dispersal are precisely the meaning of coming and departing. Furthermore, emptiness and form cannot be identical; therefore, emptiness does not depart from within form. Emptiness and form cannot be different; therefore, emptiness does not come from outside form. Neither coming nor departing is the middle way of the ultimate truth. Question: If provisional arising and ceasing of the conventional truth means that neither arising nor ceasing is the middle way of the ultimate truth, can it also be that provisional annihilation and permanence of the conventional truth means that neither annihilation nor permanence is the middle way of the ultimate truth? Answer: Generally speaking, it would be by analogy. However, the disciples of the Buddha accept that the conventional truth is arising and ceasing, yet avoid saying that the conventional truth is annihilation and permanence; therefore it is not an analogy. Unity and difference, as well as coming and departing, can apply to both senses.