中觀論疏 3.12

3.12

「問曰不生不滅以總破一切法」者，第二次釋不常不斷。前問、次答。問有四意：「不生不滅已總破一切法」者，此牒前也。「何故復說六事」者，此問後也。前問疑不太少，今問疑不太多。前問見所不多，嫌能不太少，即是見病多疑藥少。今問論主以無生無滅故餘六則無，見少藥能治多病，嫌不太多。若然者，前問答明不不少，此一問答明不非多，即是折中說也。二者以後難前。今明不生不滅已足，而更說六者，前八事雖足亦應更說。若前八事為足不更說者，今二事以足，不更說六也。三者若言不生不滅足，不應更說六事，若更說六則六事不無。四者責上說。上明無生義，為成為不成？若成，不應更說；若不成，則諸法非是不生也。「答曰為成不生不滅」者，此答明不生不滅於義實足，而更說六者為成不生不滅義故耳。餘之三難可以意知，不須答也。就文為二：初標為成、次釋為成。標為成者，約法為言。無生已攝一切法，故菩薩唯得無生法忍，實不須說六；更說六者，為人故說六耳。

Regarding "Question: Non-arising and non-perishing already generally refute all phenomena": this is the second [section], explaining non-permanence and non-annihilation. First comes the question, then the answer. The question has four points. "Non-arising and non-perishing already generally refute all phenomena": this refers back to the preceding. "Why speak further of the six matters?": this asks about what follows. The previous question doubted that [the negations] were too few; the present question doubts that they are too many. In the previous question, seeing that what was refuted was not plenty, one resented that what refutes was too little; that is, seeing many diseases, one doubted there was too little medicine. In the present question, seeing that the treatise master says the remaining six are absent because of non-arising and non-perishing, one sees that a little medicine can cure many diseases, and suspects the negations are too many. If so, the previous question and answer clarified that the negations are not few, and this question and answer clarifies that the negations are not many; this is speaking with the middle balance. Second, challenging the former by means of the latter: now it is clarified that non-arising and non-perishing are already sufficient, yet one further speaks of the six; then although the former eight matters were sufficient, one ought to have spoken further. If because the former eight matters were sufficient one did not speak further, now that the two matters are sufficient, one should not speak further of the six. Third, if one says non-arising and non-perishing are sufficient, one should not speak further of the six matters; if one speaks further of the six, then the six matters are not non-existent. Fourth, censuring the preceding explanation: was the meaning of non-arising established above or unestablished? If established, one should not speak further; if unestablished, then phenomena are not non-arising. Regarding "Answer: It is to establish non-arising and non-perishing": this answer clarifies that non-arising and non-perishing are truly sufficient in meaning, and speaking further of the six is merely to establish the meaning of non-arising and non-perishing. The remaining three challenges can be understood in thought and need not be answered. In the text there are two parts: first, indicating that it is "to establish"; next, explaining "to establish". Indicating that it is to establish is spoken in terms of phenomena: non-arising already subsumes all phenomena, hence the bodhisattva only attains anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti and in truth there is no need to speak of the six; speaking further of the six is spoken only for the sake of persons.