中觀論疏 3.14

3.14

「是故說不常不斷」下，第三結即也。問：此文何故作斯釋耶？答：論其大意者，法實有故墮斷常，亦實有故墮生滅。不實故不斷不常，不實故有何生滅？故知即也。問：生滅云何是斷常？答若兼論斷常者，神不滅更受後身為常，神滅不受後身為斷，蓋是小乘中斷常耳。今大乘中纔起一念有所得心即墮斷常，裁言有生即常，裁言有滅即斷。如《金剛波若》云「若裁取人相，即著我人眾生。」非但取人相著我人眾生，若起心取法相即著我人。以佛弟子諱著我故，舉來顯之。

Regarding "Therefore it speaks of non-permanence and non-annihilation" and following: this is the third [part], concluding the identity. Question: Why does this text give this explanation? Answer: Discussing its general purport: because phenomena are [held to be] real, one falls into annihilation and permanence; and because they are [held to be] real, one falls into arising and perishing. Because they are not real, there is non-annihilation and non-permanence; because they are not real, what arising and perishing could there be? Thus we know they are identical. Question: How are arising and perishing identical to annihilation and permanence? Answer: If discussing annihilation and permanence in a combined sense: the spirit not perishing and receiving a subsequent body is permanence; the spirit perishing and not receiving a subsequent body is annihilation; this is merely annihilation and permanence in the Hīnayāna. Now, in the Mahāyāna, the moment a single thought of grasping with attainment arises, one falls into annihilation and permanence; the moment one says there is arising, that is permanence; the moment one says there is perishing, that is annihilation. As the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā says, "If one grasps the mark of a person, one attaches to self, person, and sentient being." Not only does grasping the mark of a person attach to self, person, and sentient being; if one gives rise to a thought grasping the mark of a phenomenon, one attaches to self and person. Because the disciples of the Buddha shun attaching to a self, he brings this forth to illuminate it.