中觀論疏 3.32

3.32

長行為五：「若緣能生果」，此牒也。「應有三種」下，第二三關定也。「如前偈中說」，第三破也。然破此三句，只問其因內果之理耳。若因內有果理，即是已出空已入有，不須生。若無果理，未出空未入有，與太虛兔角不異，不可生。半有同有、半無同無。若不受兩半，只是一理，理有不得無、理無不得有，以相害故，即有無俱無。「如是三種求不可得」，第四結也。「云何言有因緣」，第五呵，即釋偈第四句也。

The prose has five parts: [First,] "If conditions could give rise to an effect"—this cites [the opponent's claim]. [Second,] from "there should be three kinds" downward—this establishes [the thesis] via the three checkpoints. [Third,] "As explained in the preceding verse"—this refutes it. Now, in refuting these three lines, one merely interrogates the principle of the effect's existence within the cause. If the principle of the effect is present within the cause, it has already emerged from non-being and entered into being, and it need not be produced. If there is no principle of the effect, it has not yet emerged from non-being and entered into being; it is no different from empty space or the horns of a hare, and cannot be produced. Being half-existent is identical to being; being half-non-existent is identical to non-being. If one does not accept the two halves and asserts only a single principle, [then] a principle of being cannot be non-being, and a principle of non-being cannot be being; because they are mutually exclusive, both being and non-being are negated. [Fourth,] "Seeking in these three ways, none can be found"—this concludes [the analysis]. [Fifth,] "How can one say there are causes and conditions?"—this rebukes [them], which explains the fourth line of the verse.