中觀論疏 3.7

3.7

Regarding "Explanations such as these concerning the characteristics of arising are all incorrect": this is the second [section], explaining the meaning of "non-". This further divides into three parts: first, a general rejection; second, pointing ahead; third, concluding the meaning of "non-". The general rejection has three points: First, to clarify that in discussing non-arising, arising is vividly present yet there is no arising, and likewise non-arising is vividly present yet there is arising. Since outsiders understand neither that arising is non-arising, how could they understand that non-arising is arising? Therefore, their conception of arising is not established. Second, since outsiders do not understand that non-arising is arising, they upside-downly and arbitrarily impute that there is a real arising of intrinsic nature; yet even within conventional truth there is no such arising, hence it says "incorrect". Third, these nine theories contradict one another: for instance, those positing oneness refute the thesis of difference, and those positing difference refute oneness; thus we know oneness and difference are both false and vain, and therefore none of them are established. Question: The Buddha refuted the eight theories of arising to elucidate non-arising, and Nāgārjuna refutes the nine theories to likewise clarify non-arising; how do they differ from the Buddha? Answer: The sūtras say, "When the four reliances appear in the world, one should know they are like the Buddha." Because they equally awaken to non-arising, there is no difference. But in distinguishing master and disciple there is a difference: the Buddha spoke non-arising, whereas the author of the treatise elucidates non-arising; hence they differ.