中觀論疏 3.10

3.10

Regarding "non-perishing": this is the second [section], refuting perishing. If by analogy with the above, one should also bring forth the various treatise masters' various imputations of the characteristics of perishing, which are no different from the nine schools. But since the meaning of arising has already been brought out, there is no need for burdensome words. The intent of this text is not to refute perishing separately, but merely to clarify that because arising is absent, there is precisely non-perishing. There are three points in all: First, refutation through mutual dependence: because arising exists, perishing exists; because arising is absent, perishing is absent. Second, when there is arising, the function of perishing has not yet occurred; if the meaning of arising is negated, there is no arising that could perish. Third, by taking arising to analogize perishing: since imputing arising where there is no arising is false, imputing perishing where there is no perishing is likewise the same.