十二門論宗致義記 2.21

2.21

初、釋名者，有二義：一、借因生果破，果從餘處自然而來；二、復觀因緣中亦無果，無果故無因，是故因果俱破。約初義，從能破為名；約後義，從所破為名。二、來意者，前來雖復廣顯從緣因果無性，而狂惑之徒復謂自然而有，為破此執，故有此門來。三、品所明者，此明果法內外俱空，因等皆爾，以成空觀。四、釋文中三：一、標宗；二、釋顯；三、類遣。釋中三：先生起。二、立頌，上半破內生，下半破外來。又上半牒前諸門緣不生果義，下半正明此門體，但依前起後，故須說也。三、釋顯中二：先釋，後結。釋中二：先釋上半，破緣內有生同前；二、釋下半頌，破餘處自然來等，謂有計微塵、世性、時、方、自在天等所造。今破若爾則不從緣生，緣亦無和合功力，是故不從外來。二、「若果眾緣中無」下，總結性空；三、類遣，並可知。

First, as for explaining the title, there are two meanings: first, [one] borrows [the idea that] an effect is produced from causes to refute [the idea that] an effect comes spontaneously from elsewhere; second, one further contemplates that within causes and conditions there is also no effect, and because there is no effect, there is no cause, and therefore causes and effects are both refuted. In terms of the first meaning, [the chapter] takes its name from what refutes; in terms of the latter meaning, it takes its name from what is refuted. Second, as for the reason for its occurrence: although previously it was broadly shown that causes and effects arising from conditions lack intrinsic nature, still confused and misguided people furthermore claim that they exist spontaneously; to refute this attachment, this gate therefore follows. Third, as for what the chapter clarifies: this clarifies that effect dharmas are empty both internally and externally, and causes and so forth are all likewise, in order to accomplish the contemplation of emptiness. Fourth, within explaining the text there are three [parts]: first, stating the thesis; second, explaining and revealing; third, extending the elimination by analogy. Within the explanation there are three: first, introducing the arising [of the discussion]. Second, presenting the verse: the first half refutes internal arising, and the second half refutes coming from the outside. Furthermore, the first half reiterates the meaning from the previous gates that conditions do not produce effects, while the second half directly clarifies the substance of this gate; yet because the later is raised based on the earlier, it must be stated. Third, within explaining and revealing there are two: first, an explanation, and second, a conclusion. Within the explanation there are two: first, explaining the first half, refuting the existence of arising within conditions, the same as before; second, explaining the second half of the verse, refuting coming spontaneously from elsewhere and so forth, namely the conceptions of creation by minute particles (paramāṇu), primordial nature (pradhāna), time, direction, Īśvara, and so forth. Now this is refuted: if it were so, then it would not be produced from conditions, and conditions would also have no efficacy of combination; therefore, it does not come from outside. Second, from "If an effect is absent in the multiple conditions" onward, [the text] universally concludes with emptiness of intrinsic nature. Third, extending the elimination by analogy can both be understood.