中觀論疏 7.35

7.35

「問曰」下，第四破無亦無。有三意：一者本宗立無，如謂世諦為有、真諦定無。二者論主上求有無從，便計於無。三者論主上借無破有，外捉破為立，是故計無。答中上半正破；下半釋破，有無一體異體二俱不成。若一體者，有無無即無。有無異體者，無有可待，故亦無無。又汝計有既是虛妄，執無亦出橫情，故二義俱非也。又汝本來無有，何所論無？

From "Question" onward, the fourth section refutes that non-being is also non-existent. There are three points of intent: first, the fundamental school establishes non-being, as in deeming conventional truth to be being and ultimate truth to be definitely non-being. Second, because the treatise master above sought being and found no source for it, [the opponent] then posits non-being. Third, because the treatise master above borrowed non-being to refute being, the outsider takes the refutation as an establishment, and therefore posits non-being. In the response, the first half is the direct refutation; the second half explains the refutation: whether being and non-being are of one substance or different substances, neither is established. If they are of one substance, when being is non-existent, then non-being is non-existent. If being and non-being are of different substances, there is no being to be awaited, and hence there is also no non-being. Furthermore, your positing of being is already false, and your clinging to non-being also stems from arbitrary bias; therefore both meanings are untenable. Moreover, you originally have no being—what non-being is there to discuss?