十二門論宗致義記 1.23

1.23

第三、約有無者，有二門：先約表，後約遮。前中二：初總，後別。總者，於一緣起融成四句，各不墮邊，謂不礙空之有，雖盡空單有而不墮有邊。二、不礙有之空，雖盡有唯空而不墮空邊。三、無異之空有，雖極相違而俱辨，不墮於二邊。四、極反之空有，雖無二雙泯而俱非，不墮於邊。是故四句歷然而不墮四邊。又亦可得依上義門四句俱得說邊，是故或非中非邊具足中邊可知。二、別者，或以幻有為有、無性為空，或無性為有、以理實故幻有為空，以不實故皆俱融雙泯各不墮邊，是名有無中道。故《涅槃》云「亦有亦無名為中道」，並準上思之。二、約遮者，亦先總後別。總中，問：依他是有耶？答：不也，以無自性故。是空耶？不也，不壞緣相故。是亦有亦無耶？不也，無二法故、不相違故。是非有非無耶？不也，以有無既離，無所待故、不礙二義故。是故由前三句離有離無故不著邊，由第四句離非有非無亦不著中，如此不著中不著邊，方為無寄中道。二、別者，先約幻有。問：幻有是有耶？答：不也，是幻有必不有故。是無耶？不也，以有既不有，無可無故；又不礙幻事，非斷滅故。是亦有亦無耶？不也，以二義形奪俱不存故。非有非無耶？不也，以無有無，無所待故，具此二義是幻有故，是故單就幻有，四句皆絕，亦無寄中道也。二、約真空者，問：真空是空耶？答：不也，以是真空非斷空故。是有耶？不也，相無不盡故。是俱耶？不也，無二法故、不相違故。是俱非耶？不也，以絕待故、具實義故。是故真空亦絕四句，具顯中道故也。上來總約依他起性明二諦中道竟。

Third, in terms of existence and non-existence, there are two approaches: first in terms of affirmation, and next in terms of negation. Within the former there are two: first general, and next specific. In the general [approach], the four propositions are integrated within a single dependent origination, each not falling into an extreme: 1. Existence that does not obstruct emptiness, though it exhausts emptiness and is solely existence, does not fall into the extreme of existence. 2. Emptiness that does not obstruct existence, though it exhausts existence and is only emptiness, does not fall into the extreme of emptiness. 3. Emptiness and existence that are non-different, though extremely contrary, are both explicated and do not fall into the two extremes. 4. Emptiness and existence that are extremely contrary, though non-dual and mutually extinguished so that both are negated, do not fall into an extreme. Therefore, the four propositions are clearly distinct yet do not fall into the four extremes. Furthermore, one can also rely on the doctrinal approaches above to state that all four propositions are extremes; therefore, whether [viewed as] neither middle nor extreme, or as fully possessing both middle and extremes, it can be understood. Second, in the specific [approach]: either illusory existence is taken as existence and the lack of intrinsic nature as emptiness; or the lack of intrinsic nature is taken as existence because it is real in principle, and illusory existence is taken as emptiness because it is not real. Both fully merge and both are extinguished, each not falling into an extreme; this is called the middle way of existence and non-existence. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Both existing and not existing is called the middle way.' All should be inferred in accordance with the above. Second, regarding negation, there is also first a general and then a specific [approach]. In the general [approach], Question: Is other-dependent [nature] existent? Answer: No, because it lacks intrinsic nature. Is it empty? Answer: No, because it does not destroy causal marks. Is it both existent and non-existent? Answer: No, because there are not two separate dharmas and they do not contradict each other. Is it neither existent nor non-existent? Answer: No, because once existence and non-existence are departed from, there is nothing to be correlated with, and it does not obstruct the two meanings. Therefore, by the first three propositions departing from existence and departing from non-existence, one does not cling to extremes; by the fourth proposition departing from neither existence nor non-existence, one also does not cling to the middle. In this way, not clinging to the middle and not clinging to extremes is only then the ungrounded middle way. Second, in the specific [approach]: first in terms of illusory existence. Question: Is illusory existence existent? Answer: No, because illusory existence is necessarily non-existent. Is it non-existent? Answer: No, because since existence is already not existent, there is no non-existence that could be non-existent; furthermore, it does not obstruct illusory occurrences, so it is not annihilation. Is it both existent and non-existent? Answer: No, because the two meanings mutually nullify and neither is preserved. Is it neither existent nor non-existent? Answer: No, because without existence and non-existence there is nothing to be correlated with, and it is illusory existence precisely because it possesses these two meanings. Therefore, taking solely illusory existence, all four propositions are severed, which is also the ungrounded middle way. Second, in terms of true emptiness: Question: Is true emptiness empty? Answer: No, because it is true emptiness, not annihilatory emptiness. Is it existent? Answer: No, because there are no marks that are not exhausted. Is it both? Answer: No, because there are not two separate dharmas and they do not contradict each other. Is it neither? Answer: No, because it transcends correlation and possesses real meaning. Therefore, true emptiness also severs the four propositions, fully revealing the middle way. The above general explanation of the two truths and the middle way in terms of the other-dependent nature is concluded.