十二門論宗致義記 2.27

2.27

初、釋名者，徵破法生，以至無生，故以為門。二、來意者，前二門偏破能生，此門別破所生，故來也。三、所明者，無生正觀，是此所說。四、釋文者四：初、標；二、釋；三、結；四、類。第二、釋中三：先徵宗開章；二、立頌略標；三、釋頌廣辨。廣辨中二：初釋顯三時，後以理正破。於中三：先釋已生不生，於中初正破，後破救。前中三：初標；二、「何以故」下，釋破。謂作無窮破，以前生生已復生後生，如是乃至第四顯無窮過也。三、「是故」下，結不生。二、「復次」下，破救。於中先牒救總非，謂彼外人救前無窮過，故言我雖生已生，然所用生生是不生而生，非是已生之生故，故但一生，無無窮失。二、正破中，初破，次例，後結。初中，初生不生而生者，此是所用生性，是未生生也，以有二生故。前言但有已生生者，是則不定。若救可，還墮前失，故云作已不作等。二、釋破不生亦不生中二：先正破，後破救。初中四：初、就奪，失相破，謂若與生法合，不名不生生；若不與生法合，則是無生法，云何名生？故云也。二、約縱，依無為破，謂若不生法有生者，涅槃是無生法亦應作生，虛空等亦爾。三、壞有為破，亦是乖位失法破，可知。四、無因生法破，不壞法阿羅漢是不動種性，揀去退相羅漢等，以彼宗許退，起煩惱非此因故。又凡夫菩提是應生不生，作應生責，羅漢煩惱是不應生而生，作應生責也。二、破救中，先外救。救意：前論主作不應生而生難，外人不受，故云非一切不生而生。有因緣和合，本無今有名生，何得言一向無？我宗中無有二種：一、是可有無；二、是畢竟無。此二中，我說可有無，何得將畢竟無為難？如上凡夫菩提未生而生，謂有因緣，遇善友等則生也。二、正破，破中三：先牒救；二、徵責；三、結非。就責中，若言不同畢竟無，而是可有無者，此等緣中為有故生？為無故生？俱及非等，皆不成生，如前諸門說。三、破生時生中四：一、離已未破，標釋可知。二、離法無時破，謂若離生有時，可有生法之能；離生既無時，何有生時生？三、時法二生破，謂既有生時，復有生法，是則有二生。前句以時無法亦無，此句以法有時亦有。四、生無行處破，謂彼生行處，是名生時；既未有時，生無生也。三、「如是」下，總結無生。四、類遣中五：一、類生遣住滅；二、遣有為；三、遣無為；四、遣眾生；五、總結一切都空。

First, explaining the title: Interrogating and refuting the production of dharmas so as to arrive at the unborn; hence it is taken as the gate. Second, the reason for following: The previous two gates specifically refuted that which produces; this gate distinctively refutes that which is produced; hence it follows. Third, what is elucidated: Correct contemplation of the unborn is what is expounded here. Fourth, explaining the text has four parts: first, stating; second, explaining; third, concluding; fourth, analogizing. Within the second, the explanation, there are three parts: first, questioning the thesis and opening the section; second, establishing the verse to indicate it briefly; third, explaining the verse to discern it extensively. Within the extensive discernment are two: first, explaining and revealing the three times; later, directly refuting through reasoning. Therein are three: first, explaining that what is already produced is not produced, wherein first is direct refutation, and later refutation of defenses. Within the former are three: first, stating; second, from "why is this?" onward, explaining the refutation, meaning it makes an infinite regress refutation: because a prior production, having been produced, again produces a subsequent production, continuing in this manner up to the fourth to show the fault of infinite regress; third, from "therefore" onward, concluding non-production. Second, from "furthermore" onward, refuting the defenses. Therein, it first cites the defense and generally rejects it: the opponent defends against the previous fault of infinite regress, saying that although what is produced produces, the "producing of production" employed is an unproduced production, not the production of what is already produced; hence there is only one production, without the fault of infinite regress. Second, within the direct refutation, first it refutes, next it analogizes, and finally it concludes. In the first part, if the initial production is an unproduced production, this is the nature of production employed, which is the production of the not-yet-produced, because there would be two productions. The previous statement that there is only the production of what is already produced is therefore indeterminate. If one accepts the defense, it falls back into the previous fault; hence it says "having been made, it does not make," and so forth. Second, in explaining the refutation of "the unproduced is also not produced," there are two: first, direct refutation; second, refuting the defenses. Within the former are four: 1. Taking away through loss of characteristic: if it combines with the dharma of production, it is not called unproduced production; if it does not combine with the dharma of production, it is an unproduced dharma—how could it be called production? Hence it is stated. 2. Granting by relying on the unconditioned: if an unproduced dharma had production, nirvāṇa, being an unproduced dharma, should also produce, and space and so forth would likewise be so. 3. Refutation through destroying the conditioned, which is also refutation through violating status and losing the dharma, as is evident. 4. Refutation through causeless production of dharmas: an arhat of indestructible dharma is of an unshakeable lineage, setting aside arhats subject to regression and the like, since that school allows regression, and arising afflictions are not the cause of this. Furthermore, an ordinary person's bodhi is what ought to be produced but is not produced, used as a challenge of "what ought to be produced"; an arhat's afflictions are what ought not to be produced yet are produced, used as a challenge of "what ought not to be produced." Second, within refuting the defenses, first is the opponent's defense. The intent of the defense: Previously, the treatise master raised the challenge of "what ought not to be produced yet is produced"; the opponent does not accept this, saying that not all that is unproduced is produced. When causes and conditions combine, what was originally nonexistent now exists and is called production—how can you say it is completely nonexistent? In our school, nonexistence is of two kinds: one is nonexistence that can become existent; the other is ultimate nonexistence. Between these two, I speak of nonexistence that can become existent; how can you take ultimate nonexistence as a challenge? As above, an ordinary person's bodhi, not yet produced, is produced; this means that when there are causes and conditions, meeting good friends and so forth, it is produced. Second, direct refutation; within the refutation are three: first, citing the defense; second, questioning and interrogating; third, concluding with the fault. Concerning the interrogation: If you say it is not like ultimate nonexistence, but is nonexistence that can become existent, within these conditions, is it produced because it exists? Is it produced because it does not exist? Both, neither, and so forth, are all untenable for production, as stated in the previous gates. Third, within refuting production at the time of producing, there are four: 1. refutation through separation from what is already and not yet [produced], the statement and explanation being evident; 2. refutation through there being no time apart from dharmas: if there were time apart from production, there could be the capacity to produce dharmas; since there is no time apart from production, how could there be production at the time of producing? 3. refutation through two productions of time and dharma: if there is a time of producing and also a dharma of producing, then there are two productions; the previous phrase showed that without time there is also no dharma, while this phrase shows that with dharma there is also time; 4. refutation through production having no sphere of activity: that sphere of activity of production is called the time of producing; since there is not yet time, production has no producing. Third, from "in this way" onward, it generally concludes with non-production. Fourth, within analogizing and eliminating, there are five: 1. analogizing production to eliminate abiding and cessation; 2. eliminating the conditioned; 3. eliminating the unconditioned; 4. eliminating sentient beings; 5. generally concluding that all are completely empty.