中觀論疏 6.16

6.16

「答曰」下，第二破。「俱不成」者，凡有四義：上來所喻既不成，能喻即壞；以此能所如燃可燃，燃無故，可燃亦無。二者上破有為無為一切物，燃可燃既是有為，以屬前破，故無可為喻，不應引也。三者所見若實，則一事可知，上來諸立，求悉無從；今復更引之，知虛妄。四者如下一異等六門求之無從，故不成也。今且懸就一異求無者，一則唯薪無火，無火云何有薪？故云俱無。又一則唯火無薪，無薪云何有火？復是俱無。三則一物不可說其薪火，故復是俱無。異亦三失：一者既其異體，便應相離，則有東西之之過。二者前後失，未有薪應先有火。三存亡過，薪亡火存，是故俱無也。

From 'Answer' onward, second, is the refutation. Regarding 'both are not established,' there are four meanings overall: First, since what was metaphorized above is not established, the metaphor itself collapses; because this relatum and vehicle are like the burning and the burnable, since burning does not exist, the burnable also does not exist. Second, above it refuted all conditioned and unconditioned things; since the burning and the burnable are conditioned, they fall under the prior refutation, and so there is nothing that can serve as a metaphor—they should not be cited. Third, if what is seen were real, then a single matter could be known; yet all the positions advanced above, when sought, lack any basis; now they are cited again, so one knows they are false. Fourth, as sought below through the six gates of identity and difference and the rest, they lack any basis; hence they are not established. Now, provisionally seeking non-existence based on identity and difference: If identical, there would only be fuel without fire; without fire, how could there be fuel? Hence it says both are non-existent. Furthermore, if identical, there would only be fire without fuel; without fuel, how could there be fire? This again means both are non-existent. Third, a single entity cannot be called both fuel and fire, so again both are non-existent. Difference also has three faults: First, since they are different substances, they should be separated from each other, which leads to the error of east and west. Second, the fault of before and after: when fuel does not yet exist, fire should exist first. Third, the fault of surviving and perishing: fuel perishes while fire survives. Therefore, both are non-existent.