中觀論疏 9.18

9.18

「問曰」下，生第二三門破生。前開四句檢無生，但惑者多言從法生法，故更開三門檢責初句。又前開四門求無生，今以三門釋上四門，明一一門中皆得以三句責之，今但據初為言耳。長行云「法未生時無所有故」者，凡物生時要前未生而生，若未生則是無，無云何得自生？又即自不生者，如指不自觸也。未生無他，他亦是法；必未生是無，以何為他？下明自他相待。未生無自，安得有他？問：外人前眼見生滅，論主以二偈破生，何以不破滅耶？答：既無有生，滅不足破。又以前四後三例生求滅，故不別說也。

From "The question says" onward gives rise to the second, refuting arising through three gates. Previously, the four propositions were set forth to examine non-arising, but confused people mostly say that from a dharma a dharma arises; therefore, three gates are opened again to examine and cross-question the first proposition. Moreover, previously four gates were opened to seek non-arising; now three gates are used to explain the above four gates, clarifying that within each single gate one can interrogate it with the three propositions; here it only speaks based on the first. The prose says, "Because when a dharma has not yet arisen, it is nonexistent": whenever an entity arises, it must necessarily arise from having previously not arisen; if it has not yet arisen, it is nonexistent; being nonexistent, how could it arise from itself? Furthermore, not arising from itself is like a finger not touching itself. Before arising, there is no other, and the other is also a dharma; if before arising it is definitely nonexistent, what can be taken as the other? Below, it clarifies mutual dependence of self and other. Before arising, there is no self; how could there be an other? Question: Previously, the outsider saw arising and ceasing with the eye, and the treatise master used two verses to refute arising; why did he not refute ceasing? Answer: Since there is no arising, ceasing is not worth refuting. Furthermore, using the former four and latter three as examples to investigate ceasing by analogy with arising, it is not spoken of separately.