中觀論疏 9.13

9.13

「問曰」下，生第二盡不盡門破。前立義云現有盡滅相者，共離二門破之，無辭可對，但舉現事以問論主。從阿毘地獄至大乘金剛心，並是無常盡滅之法，故云「無常無奢促，行苦無重輕。」又上來立申義屈，今品初立屈義復屈，豈非現見盡滅相耶？「是盡滅相亦說盡不盡」者，前明通是無常，今就無常中有於假實，實法則滅盡，假名相續名為不盡。破意云：實法則一念不住，豈可欲成物耶？故云「盡則無有成」。若欲壞之，久已謝滅，何所論壞耶？又不盡是常，常復何所論成？故云「不盡亦無成」。又大小乘盡滅義不同，小乘念念有法滅盡，大乘念念滅者無有法也，猶野馬走耳。《地持論》稱不成實無常，假名則盡續不斷，此則是常。既其是常，常則無成，成無故壞亦無。救云：舉體續、舉體滅，云何作此破？答：須細心。汝舉體續邊必不滅，是故名常，故假實二門俱無成壞。此盡不盡猶是常無常門，亦是決定不決定門破耳。長行釋，甚分明。「盡亦無有壞」，此相待破。向有成可有壞，竟無成，何有壞耶？「不盡亦無壞」，就常門破。

From "The question says" onward arises the second refutation, the gate of exhaustion and non-exhaustion. The earlier proposition said that there is manifestly the characteristic of exhaustion and cessation; after the two gates of togetherness and separation refuted it, [the opponent] had no words to reply, so they merely raised manifest events to question the treatise master. From the Avīci Hell up to the diamond-like mind of the Mahāyāna, all are impermanent phenomena of exhaustion and cessation; hence it is said, "Impermanence is neither loose nor swift; the suffering of conditioning is neither heavy nor light." Furthermore, hitherto their asserted positions were defeated; at the beginning of this chapter their asserted position of defeat was defeated once again; is this not manifestly seeing the characteristic of exhaustion and cessation? "In this characteristic of exhaustion and cessation, we also speak of exhaustion and non-exhaustion": earlier it was explained generally that all is impermanent; now within impermanence there are nominal and real: real phenomena are completely exhausted, while the continuity of provisional designations is called non-exhaustion. The intent of the refutation is: a real phenomenon does not abide for a single thought-moment, so how could one wish it to bring things to be? Hence it says "if exhausted, there is no coming-to-be." If one wishes to dissolve it, it has long since passed away into cessation; what is there to speak of dissolving? Moreover, non-exhaustion is permanent, and with what is permanent what is there to speak of coming to be? Hence it says "if unexhausted, there is also no coming-to-be." Furthermore, the meanings of exhaustion and cessation in Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna differ: in Hīnayāna, from moment to moment there are phenomena that are completely exhausted; in Mahāyāna, that which ceases from moment to moment contains no phenomena, like a mirage running. The *Bodhisattvabhūmi* (*Dichi lun*) refers to unestablished impermanence: provisional designations continue without interruption, which is permanence. Since it is permanent, what is permanent has no coming-to-be; and because coming-to-be does not exist, dissolution does not exist either. An attempted rescue says: "The entire entity continues, and the entire entity ceases; how can you make this refutation?" Answer: You must pay close attention. In terms of your entire entity continuing, it certainly does not cease, therefore it is called permanent; hence under both gates of nominal and real, there is neither coming-to-be nor dissolution. This gate of exhaustion and non-exhaustion is still the gate of permanent and impermanent, and also refutes via the gate of determined and undetermined. The prose explanation is exceedingly clear. "If exhausted, there is also no dissolution": this is a refutation based on mutual dependence. If there had been coming-to-be just now, there could be dissolution; but since ultimately there is no coming-to-be, how could there be dissolution? "If unexhausted, there is also no dissolution": this refutes from the approach of permanence.