十二門論宗致義記 1.13

1.13

第三立破無礙者，以情執非理當體即空，致使無破之破、破即無破。若執有破，還同所破，是故非破。今既非所破，是故以無破為破，則能所俱絕、心無所寄為究竟破。取意思之，勿著於言。又以法既超情，何容得立？約情假立，立即無立。若能了此立即無立，無立之立為究竟立。若如言取立，則是情計，非所立故，則無立也。是故情中亦無立，以非是法故；情外亦無立，以無緣對故。但可會情入法，立即無立、無立即立。取意思之，其致可見，是謂立破紛然未曾有說，伏機入法何嘗對敵？又以遣情無不契理，故破無不立；立法無不銷情，故立無不破。是以破即立故無破，立即破故無立，無立無破不礙立破，是故立破一而恒二、二而常一，有不礙空、空不礙有，是謂立破無礙大意也。

Third, the unobstructedness of establishing and refuting: because conceptual attachment is contrary to principle, its very essence is empty, leading to a refutation of no refutation, where refuting is precisely no refutation. If one clings to there being a refutation, one is again identical to what is refuted; therefore it is not a refutation. Now, since it is not what is refuted, refuting through non-refutation means that subject and object are both extinguished, and with the mind having nowhere to rest, this is the ultimate refutation. Grasp the meaning and reflect upon it; do not become attached to the words. Furthermore, since the Dharma transcends conceptualisation, how could it admit of being established? Establishing it provisionally in relation to conceptualisation, establishing is precisely non-establishing. If one can understand that this establishing is non-establishing, then establishing through non-establishing is the ultimate establishing. If one grasps establishing according to words, that is conceptual fabrication, and because it is not what is established, there is no establishing. Therefore, there is also no establishing within conceptualisation, because it is not the Dharma; nor is there establishing outside conceptualisation, because there is no object of engagement. One can only harmonise conceptualisation into the Dharma: establishing is immediately non-establishing, and non-establishing is immediately establishing. Grasp the meaning and reflect upon it, and its principle will be evident. This is called: though establishing and refuting are rampant, nothing has ever been spoken; though subduing faculties to enter the Dharma, how has there ever been an opponent? Furthermore, because banishing conceptualisation never fails to tally with principle, in refutation there is nothing that is not established; because establishing Dharma never fails to dissolve conceptualisation, in establishing there is nothing that is not refuted. Hence, because refutation is precisely establishing, there is no refutation; because establishing is precisely refutation, there is no establishing. Neither establishing nor refuting does not obstruct establishing and refuting. Therefore, establishing and refuting are one yet always two, two yet always one; existence does not obstruct emptiness, and emptiness does not obstruct existence. This is the overarching meaning of the unobstructedness of establishing and refuting.