中觀論疏 3.7

3.7

「如是等說生相皆不然」者，第二釋不義。又開三別：一總非、二指後、三結成不義。總非有三意：一明夫論無生者，生宛然而無生，亦無生宛然而生。外人既不識生無生，豈識無生生？故生義不成。二者外人既不識無生生，顛倒橫計有性實生，世諦之中亦無此生，故云不然。三者此之九計自相是非，如計一者破異執、異者破一，則知一異並是虛妄，故皆不成。問：佛破八計生辯無生，龍樹破九計亦明無生，與佛何異？答：經云「四依出世，當知如佛。」以同悟無生，故無異也。而開師弟子不同者，佛說無生、論主申無生，是故異也。

Regarding "Explanations such as these concerning the characteristics of arising are all incorrect": this is the second [section], explaining the meaning of "non-". This further divides into three parts: first, a general rejection; second, pointing ahead; third, concluding the meaning of "non-". The general rejection has three points: First, to clarify that in discussing non-arising, arising is vividly present yet there is no arising, and likewise non-arising is vividly present yet there is arising. Since outsiders understand neither that arising is non-arising, how could they understand that non-arising is arising? Therefore, their conception of arising is not established. Second, since outsiders do not understand that non-arising is arising, they upside-downly and arbitrarily impute that there is a real arising of intrinsic nature; yet even within conventional truth there is no such arising, hence it says "incorrect". Third, these nine theories contradict one another: for instance, those positing oneness refute the thesis of difference, and those positing difference refute oneness; thus we know oneness and difference are both false and vain, and therefore none of them are established. Question: The Buddha refuted the eight theories of arising to elucidate non-arising, and Nāgārjuna refutes the nine theories to likewise clarify non-arising; how do they differ from the Buddha? Answer: The sūtras say, "When the four reliances appear in the world, one should know they are like the Buddha." Because they equally awaken to non-arising, there is no difference. But in distinguishing master and disciple there is a difference: the Buddha spoke non-arising, whereas the author of the treatise elucidates non-arising; hence they differ.