十二門論宗致義記 1.31

1.31

問：若爾，何故清辯、護法後代論師互相破耶？答：此乃相成，非是相破。何者？為末代有情根器漸鈍，聞說幻有謂為定有，故清辯等破有令盡至畢竟空，方乃得彼緣起幻有。若不至此畢竟性空，則不成彼緣起幻有，是故為成有故破於有也。又彼聞說緣生性空謂為斷無，故護法等破空存有，幻有存故，方乃得彼不異有之空。以若不全體至此幻有，則不是彼真性之空，是故為成空故破於空也。若無如此，後代論師以二理交徹全體相奪，無由得顯緣起甚深，是故相破反是相成。由緣起法幻有真空有二義故：一極相順，謂冥合一相舉體全攝；二、極相違，謂各互相害全奪永盡。若不相奪永盡，無以舉體全收，是故極違即極順也。龍樹、無著就極順門，故無相破。清辯、護法據極違門，故須相破。違順無礙故，方是緣起，是故前後不相違也。餘義準上思之，諸諍無不和會耳。

Question: If so, why did later treatise masters, Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla, refute each other? Answer: This is in fact mutual completion, not mutual refutation. Why? Because the faculties of sentient beings in the latter age gradually became dull; hearing of illusory existence, they took it to be definitive existence, and so Bhāviveka and others refuted existence utterly, reaching ultimate emptiness, so that one might only then grasp that conditionally arisen illusory existence. If one does not reach this ultimate emptiness of intrinsic nature, then that conditionally arisen illusory existence is not accomplished; therefore, in order to accomplish existence, they refuted existence. Moreover, hearing that conditioned arising is empty of intrinsic nature, they took it to be annihilation; therefore Dharmapāla and others refuted emptiness to preserve existence, and because illusory existence is preserved, one may only then grasp that emptiness which is not different from existence. For if one does not reach this illusory existence in its entire substance, then it is not that emptiness of true nature; therefore, in order to accomplish emptiness, they refuted emptiness. If it were not for this, with later treatise masters interpenetrating the two principles and wholly stripping them away from each other, there would be no way to reveal the profound depth of conditioned arising. Therefore, mutual refutation is conversely mutual completion. Because the conditionally arisen phenomena of illusory existence and true emptiness have two meanings: first, extreme harmony, meaning that they merge into a single characteristic and their entire substance is fully subsumed; second, extreme opposition, meaning that they mutually harm each other and totally divest each other completely. If they did not divest each other completely, there would be no way to completely gather in the entire substance; therefore, extreme opposition is precisely extreme harmony. Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga approached through the gate of extreme harmony, hence there was no mutual refutation. Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla relied upon the gate of extreme opposition, hence they had to refute each other. Only when opposition and harmony are unobstructed is there conditioned arising; therefore, earlier and later do not contradict each other. Other meanings should be inferred by analogy with the above, and all disputes will without exception be reconciled.