中觀論疏 3.9

3.9

「生相決定不可得」者，第三結成不義。二諦中決定無實性之生，故云決定不可得。問：如此生相云何不可得？答：今且寄近事以曉遠旨。就此中略破九家。若因果一，則因自生因、果自生果，米自生米、飯自生飯。若異者，米飯無有兩體，云何得異？若飯異米而飯從米生，飯亦異土應從土生。若米異飯而生飯，土亦異飯何不生飯？若米中已有飯，飯中已有不淨食、不淨物也。若米中無飯，雖復用米，終不成飯。又米中無飯而生飯者，亦無衣物何不生衣物？若飯還從飯自體生，則不從米生。若米是飯他，而飯從米生，米中無飯自體，待誰為他耶？若飯從飯體生，復從米生，則二俱有過。若言飯從本無生者，則轉無作有。若以有為因從有生者，有因復從誰生？是故九計決定不成。問：外云決定有生，此是有生見。論主言決定無生，應是無生見也。答：論主懷中未曾生無生，但為外人言決定有，求彼決定有無所有，故言決定無生耳。

Regarding "The characteristic of arising is definitively unfindable": this is the third [part], concluding the meaning of "non-". Within the two truths, an arising of real nature is definitively non-existent, hence it says "definitively unfindable". Question: Why is such a characteristic of arising unfindable? Answer: Now, we shall temporarily resort to proximate matters to illuminate the profound purport. Here we briefly refute the nine schools. If cause and effect were one, then cause would self-produce cause and effect would self-produce effect; uncooked rice would self-produce uncooked rice, and cooked rice would self-produce cooked rice. If they were different, uncooked rice and cooked rice do not possess two separate substances, so how could they be different? If cooked rice were different from uncooked rice yet cooked rice arose from uncooked rice, cooked rice is also different from soil, so it ought to arise from soil. If uncooked rice is different from cooked rice and produces cooked rice, soil is also different from cooked rice, so why does it not produce cooked rice? If cooked rice already existed within uncooked rice, then within cooked rice there would already exist impure food and impure things. If within uncooked rice there were no cooked rice, then although one uses uncooked rice, in the end it would not become cooked rice. Furthermore, if uncooked rice lacked cooked rice yet produced cooked rice, it also lacks clothing, so why does it not produce clothing? If cooked rice arose back from its own substance, then it would not arise from uncooked rice. If uncooked rice is other than cooked rice and cooked rice arises from uncooked rice, yet within uncooked rice there is no substance of cooked rice, relative to what is it "other"? If cooked rice arose from the substance of cooked rice and also arose from uncooked rice, then both would have faults. If one says that cooked rice arises from original non-existence, that would be transforming non-existence into existence. If one takes existence as the cause and it arises from existence, then from what does that existent cause arise? Therefore, the nine theories are definitively unestablished. Question: The outsider says there is definitively arising, which is the view of arising. The author of the treatise says there is definitively non-arising, which should be the view of non-arising. Answer: In the bosom of the author of the treatise there has never been arising or non-arising; it is only because the outsider asserts a definitive existence that, seeking that definitive existence and finding nothing, he merely says "definitively non-arising".