十二門論宗致義記 1.30

1.30

第二、會無違者，諸緣起法未嘗有體、未曾損壞，無體無壞、無二無礙為緣起法，是故龍樹等雖說盡有之空，而不待滅有；既不損有，即是不違有之空也。故龍樹說空，離有離無為真空也。無著等雖說盡空之有，而不損真空，既不損空，即是不違空之有也。故亦離有無之幻，有何相違耶？當知二說全體相與際限無遺，雖各述一義而舉體圓具，故無違也。如其不爾，恐墮空無勵意立有，不達此有是不異空之有故，是故不受彼空，反失自有。失自有者，良由取有。又若恐墮有所得故，猛勵立空，不達此空是不異有之空故，是故不受緣有，反失真空。失真空者，良由取空。是故舉體全空之有，無著等說；舉體全有之空，龍樹等說。非直二說互不相違，亦乃二義相由全攝，故無二也。

Second, harmonising so that there is no contradiction: all conditionally arisen phenomena have never possessed an intrinsic substance, and have never been destroyed; being without substance and without destruction, non-dual and unimpeded—this is the phenomenon of conditioned arising. Therefore, though Nāgārjuna and others spoke of emptiness exhausting existence, they did not wait for the destruction of existence; since it does not harm existence, it is an emptiness that does not contradict existence. Thus Nāgārjuna taught emptiness, free from existence and free from non-existence, as true emptiness. Though Asaṅga and others spoke of existence exhausting emptiness, they did not harm true emptiness; since it does not harm emptiness, it is an existence that does not contradict emptiness. Thus it is an illusion free from existence and non-existence—what contradiction is there? One should know that the two teachings are wholly interrelated without remainder; though each expounds one principle, they are fully complete in their entire substance, and therefore there is no contradiction. If this were not so, then fearing falling into emptiness and non-existence, one would make effort to establish existence, failing to realise that this existence is an existence not different from emptiness; hence one would not accept that emptiness, and conversely lose one's own existence. Losing one's own existence is precisely due to grasping at existence. Moreover, if fearing falling into apprehension, one forcefully establishes emptiness, failing to realise that this emptiness is an emptiness not different from existence; hence one would not accept conditioned existence, and conversely lose true emptiness. Losing true emptiness is precisely due to grasping at emptiness. Therefore, the existence whose entire substance is completely empty is taught by Asaṅga and others; the emptiness whose entire substance is completely existent is taught by Nāgārjuna and others. Not only do the two teachings not contradict each other, but the two principles also mutually depend on and completely subsume each other, and hence they are non-dual.