大乘起信論義記別記 1.60

1.60

第三十五、四謗章（四謗者，凡夫迷因緣故起：一者、增益謗；二者、損成謗；三者、相違謗；四者、戱論謗）。言增益謗者，夫論一切諸法，從因緣生，無作者故；作時不住，無自性故，非分別所及。諸法之性如是，不可取著。然凡夫二乘，諸法生時，即執為有；但因緣之法，其性離有。離有法上，執言有者，不稱理故，名增益謗。有既成謗，無應合理。義亦不然。因緣之法，性雖有，然緣起現前，不可言無。於非無法上，執言無者，不應理故，名損成謗。有無既是其過，亦有亦無應是道理。即答：因緣是一法，性不相違，不相違者，名因緣法。亦有亦無其性相違之法，即非因緣，非因緣故，相違謗也。既亦有亦無是違法，不稱實見，非有非無應與理合。即答言：夫論道理，約因緣以顯，非有非無乃是因緣之外，不應道理，戲弄諸法，名戲論謗。夫論有所分別，與取捨相應者，皆是情計，不應實理；離意絕相，名為中道。故經云：因緣之法，離有離無也。

Thirty-fifth: Section on the four calumnies (the four calumnies arise because ordinary beings are confused about causes and conditions: 1. the calumny of superimposition; 2. the calumny of deprecation; 3. the calumny of contradiction; 4. the calumny of conceptual proliferation). As for the calumny of superimposition: generally speaking, all dharmas arise from causes and conditions because there is no creator; at the time of their creation they do not abide, because they have no self-nature, beyond the reach of conceptual discrimination. Such is the nature of all dharmas, which cannot be grasped. Yet ordinary beings and [practitioners of] the two vehicles, when all dharmas arise, grasp them as existent; but the dharmas of causes and conditions are by nature free from existence. To grasp and assert existence regarding dharmas that are free from existence does not accord with principle; hence it is called the calumny of superimposition. Since existence constitutes a calumny, non-existence should accord with principle. This meaning is also not so. Although the nature of dharmas of causes and conditions is [not] existent, yet pratītyasamutpāda is present right before us and cannot be called non-existent. To grasp and assert non-existence regarding dharmas that are not non-existent does not accord with principle; hence it is called the calumny of deprecation. Since existence and non-existence are both faults, both existence and non-existence should be the principle. The reply is: causes and conditions are a single dharma, whose nature is not contradictory; that which is not contradictory is called the dharma of causes and conditions. Dharmas that are both existent and non-existent are contradictory in nature and thus are not causes and conditions; because they are not causes and conditions, this is the calumny of contradiction. Since both existence and non-existence is a contradictory dharma and does not accord with the real view, neither existence nor non-existence should accord with principle. The reply is: principle is revealed in reference to causes and conditions; neither existence nor non-existence lies outside of causes and conditions, does not accord with principle, and trifles with all dharmas; hence it is called the calumny of conceptual proliferation. In general, that which involves conceptual discrimination and corresponds to acceptance and rejection is entirely affective reckoning and does not accord with the true principle; transcending thought and terminating marks is called the middle path. Therefore a sūtra states: 'The dharma of causes and conditions is free from existence and free from non-existence.'