中觀論疏 7.33

7.33

品為二：一離破有無、二合破有無。離合各有四。離中四者，第一破自有、次破他有、第三破自他外有、第四破無。初破有者，一切眾生初本見有，後值邪師方起無見耳。又四句之中有是初句。初長行立明有性，假緣得生；如其無性，雖復假緣終不得生。答中上半牒總非，明眾緣與性兩義相乖，若有自性則不假緣，如其假緣則便失性；汝言有性復假眾緣，則義成鉾楯。下半破云：泥中瓶性非眾緣作，今若假緣則是作法，此是體性之性；若有自體則不假緣，假緣則無自體。「問曰」下，生第二偈受論主責。若性從眾緣作，有何咎耶？以外人有為之法皆藉四緣，性既是有為，亦假眾緣所作，答中上半牒而總非、下半釋出外人義明性非因緣所作。由如事火，可假人功眾緣所生，木中火性誰造作耶？當知此性本來已有，非眾緣生。若假眾緣生，則是本無今有，墮二世無義也。

The chapter has two parts: first, refuting being and non-being separately; second, refuting being and non-being jointly. Each of the separate and joint parts has four sections. The four within the separate refutation are: first, refuting intrinsic being (own-nature); next, refuting other-being (other-nature); third, refuting being apart from self and other; fourth, refuting non-being. In the initial refutation of being: all sentient beings initially and fundamentally see being, and only later, meeting false teachers, give rise to the view of non-being. Furthermore, among the four propositions, being is the first proposition. The initial prose establishes and explains that if a nature exists, it can arise by relying on conditions; if it lacks a nature, even if it relies on conditions, it can ultimately never arise. In the response, the first half of the verse takes up [the thesis] and generally rejects it, explaining that conditions and intrinsic nature are mutually contradictory: if there is an intrinsic nature, it does not rely on conditions; if it relies on conditions, it loses its intrinsic nature. If you say that there is an intrinsic nature and yet it relies on various conditions, your argument becomes a contradiction. The second half refutes it by saying: the nature of a jar in clay is not made by various conditions; now, if it relies on conditions, it is a produced phenomenon; this refers to the nature of intrinsic substance. If it has an intrinsic substance, it does not rely on conditions; if it relies on conditions, it lacks an intrinsic substance. From "Question" onward, the second verse is introduced, receiving the critique of the treatise master. If a nature is produced from various conditions, what fault is there? Because for the outsider, conditioned phenomena all depend on the four conditions; since the nature is conditioned, it is also made relying on various conditions. In the response, the first half takes this up and generally rejects it; the second half explains the outsider's position to show that nature is not produced by causes and conditions. Just like the phenomenon of fire, it can arise relying on human effort and various conditions, but who creates the nature of fire within wood? One should know that this nature has always existed from the beginning and is not produced by various conditions. If it were produced relying on various conditions, it would be non-existent originally and existent now, falling into the doctrine that the two times do not exist.