中觀論疏 3.10

3.10

「不滅者」，此第二破滅。若例上者，亦應出諸論師種種計滅相，如九家不異。但生義已出，不待煩文。此文意非是別破於滅，但明生無故即是無滅。凡有三意：一相待破，生有故滅有、生無故滅無。二者當有生時未有滅用，生義若廢則無生可滅。三者以生類滅，無生計生既是虛妄，無滅計滅義亦同然。

Regarding "non-perishing": this is the second [section], refuting perishing. If by analogy with the above, one should also bring forth the various treatise masters' various imputations of the characteristics of perishing, which are no different from the nine schools. But since the meaning of arising has already been brought out, there is no need for burdensome words. The intent of this text is not to refute perishing separately, but merely to clarify that because arising is absent, there is precisely non-perishing. There are three points in all: First, refutation through mutual dependence: because arising exists, perishing exists; because arising is absent, perishing is absent. Second, when there is arising, the function of perishing has not yet occurred; if the meaning of arising is negated, there is no arising that could perish. Third, by taking arising to analogize perishing: since imputing arising where there is no arising is false, imputing perishing where there is no perishing is likewise the same.