中觀論疏 6.7

6.7

「復次有不能作無」，第三一有一無門破無相作義。一有一無者，謂人是有而業是無、人亦是無而業是有也。問：此是誰義耶？答：如〈本住〉云「未有眼耳等根前已有本住，此是有人而無業」也。成論師云：前三心但有法未有人，此是有法無人也。又如世人云：未造作善惡業時已有於人，此是有人無法。毘曇云：未來有法、未有人名，此是有法無人。又如經云「我無、造無、受者無，善惡之業不敗亡。」亦是有法無人也。又如成論師釋滅度義云法滅人度，又是有人而無法也。又造善故名善人，若未造善不名善人，餘二性亦爾，此是有法而無人也。偈為二：上半正破、下半指前破。云有不出全有半有、無不出全無半無，上已破竟，既無有無，何有相作？

From "Furthermore, what exists cannot perform what does not exist" onward is the third gate, of one-existent and one-non-existent, refuting the meaning of mutual action. "One-existent and one-non-existent" means that the person exists while karma does not, or the person does not exist while karma exists. Question: Whose doctrine is this? Answer: As the chapter "Prior Entity" says: "Before faculties such as eyes and ears exist, there is already a prior entity; this is having a person but no karma." The Tattvasiddhi masters say: "In the first three thoughts there are only phenomena and not yet a person; this is having phenomena without a person." Furthermore, as worldly people say: "Before good and evil karma is performed, there is already a person; this is having a person without phenomena." The Abhidharma says: "In the future there are phenomena, but not yet the designation of a person; this is having phenomena without a person." Furthermore, as the sūtra says: "There is no self, no agent, and no experiencer, yet good and evil karma does not perish." This is also having phenomena without a person. Furthermore, as the Tattvasiddhi masters explain the meaning of nirvāṇa, saying: "Phenomena perish and the person is delivered; this is again having a person without phenomena." Furthermore, performing good is why one is called a good person, and if one has not performed good one is not called a good person, and the other two natures are also like this; this is having phenomena without a person. The verse has two parts: the first half directly refutes it; the second half points to the earlier refutation. It says that existence does not go beyond total existence or half-existence, and non-existence does not go beyond total non-existence or half-non-existence; these having already been refuted above, since there is neither existence nor non-existence, how could there be mutual action?