十二門論宗致義記 2.11

2.11

第二、破無為中二：先牒前起後，謂以相空例所相亦空，此有為空故，起後無為亦空。二、正破中，先正破，後破救。前中，初標後釋。釋中二：初、破無為體，謂明滅却有為，是則無物，更有何法名作無為，是故無此無為法體。又有為既空，無可滅故，無無為也。二、「復次」下，破無為相，謂無表相故無體也。三相既是有為，無三即是無法，豈以無法為相？是故無也。二、「若謂」下，破救，於中二：初、破當體表相；二、破反對顯相。前中二：初、牒計總非；二、正破。正破中三：初、總徵知相；二、別就有相徵；三、別就無相徵，謂若有則乖宗、若無則失表故，並可知。二、「若謂」下，破反對顯相。於中四：先牒計總非，謂先喻後法。外意如眾衣皆有別記驗之相，唯一衣無記驗相，則名此衣名無相衣，非謂無此衣法，但以對眾衣有相，說此為無。無為亦爾，故非是無法。二、釋破；三、「是故」下，結非；四、懸指後破，謂此後門中破有相無相者是。四、類遣，一切無不歸空，可知。

Second, the refutation of the unconditioned has two parts: first, restating what preceded to introduce what follows—namely, using the emptiness of the characteristic to extend the analogy that the characterized is also empty; because this conditioned is empty, it introduces that the unconditioned that follows is also empty. Second, in the direct refutation, first there is the direct refutation, and next, the refutation of the defense. In the former, first there is the statement, and then the explanation. In the explanation there are two parts: first, refuting the substance of the unconditioned—namely, explaining that if the conditioned is extinguished and eliminated, then there is no entity at all; what further dharma could be called the unconditioned? Therefore, this substance of an unconditioned dharma does not exist. Furthermore, since the conditioned is already empty, there is nothing that can be extinguished; hence there is no unconditioned. Second, from 'Furthermore' onward, refuting the characteristic of the unconditioned—namely, because there is no manifest mark, there is no substance. Since the three characteristics are conditioned, being free of the three is simply a non-existent dharma; how could a non-existent dharma serve as a characteristic? Therefore it does not exist. Second, from 'If you say' onward, refuting the defense, which has two parts: first, refuting an ostensive mark inherent in its own substance; second, refuting an expressed mark based on contrast. In the former there are two parts: first, restating the claim and generally rejecting it; second, the direct refutation. In the direct refutation there are three parts: first, a general examination of the cognition of the mark; second, examining specifically with respect to having a mark; third, examining specifically with respect to lacking a mark; that is, if it has one, it contradicts the tenet; if it lacks one, it loses its ostensive function; both can be understood. Second, from 'If you say' onward, refuting the expressed mark based on contrast. In this there are four parts: first, restating the claim and generally rejecting it, which means first giving the simile and then the dharma. The opponent's idea is that just as among a group of robes all have distinctive identifying marks, and only one robe lacks an identifying mark, that robe is called a markless robe—this does not mean that the entity of this robe does not exist, but only in contrast to the group of robes having marks is this one said to have none. The unconditioned is also like this; hence it is not a non-existent dharma. Second, explaining the refutation; third, from 'Therefore' onward, concluding the error; fourth, pointing forward to a later refutation, namely the refutation of having marks and lacking marks in the next chapter. Fourth, the analogical dismissal: that everything without exception returns to emptiness can be understood.