大乘玄論 1.9

1.9

明中道第六。初就八不明中道、後就二諦明中道。初中師有三種方言。第一方言云：所以牒八不在初者，欲洗淨一切有所得心。有得之徒，無不墮此八計中。如小乘人言，謂有解之可生、惑之可滅。乃至眾生，從無明流來，反本還源故去。今八不橫破八迷、竪窮五句，以求彼生滅不得，故言不生不滅。生滅既去，不生不滅、亦生滅亦不生滅、非生滅非不生滅五句自崩。然非生非不生既是中道，而生而不生即是假名。假生不可言生、不可言不生，即是世諦中道；假不生不可言不生、不可言非不生，名為真諦中道。此是二諦各論中道。然世諦生滅是無生滅生滅，第一義無生滅是生滅無生滅。然無生滅生滅，豈是生滅？生滅無生滅，豈是無生滅？故非生滅非無生滅名二諦，合明中道。第二方言云：所以明三種中道者，為顯如來從得道夜至涅槃夜常說中道。又學佛教人，作三中不成，故墮在偏病；今對彼中義不成，故辨三中。問：云何學佛教人三中不成？答：他云實法滅故不常，假名相續故不斷。今謂不常猶是斷、不斷猶是常，唯見斷常，何中之有？為對此三中不成，明三種中道。今明中道者，無生滅生滅為俗諦中，生滅無生滅為真諦中。無生滅生滅，豈是生滅？生滅無生滅，豈是無生滅？故非生滅非無生滅，二諦合明中道。問：後明三中，與前何異？答：前明二諦中道，是因緣假，名破性中。第三雙泯二假，稱為體中，亦名因緣表中道。故前語有四重階級：一者初章四句求性有無不可得故，言非有非無名為中道。外人既聞非有非無，即謂無復真俗二諦，便起斷見。是故第二說而有而無以為二諦，接其斷心。第三欲顯而有而無，明其是中道，是因緣有無，不同汝性有無義故，第三明二諦用中，雙彈兩性。第四次欲轉假有無二，故明體中。初明性空，次後明假，第三明用中，第四明體中，故有四階。此是攝嶺興皇始末對由來義有此四重階級。得此意者，解一師立中假體用四種意也。又初非性有無以為中者，此是假前中義。次而有而無名為二諦，是中後假義。次假有非有、假無非無，二諦合明中道者，此是假後中義。問：破性中因緣表中道者，云何中前假、中後假耶？答：中前假者，未說體中，前明於假，即上破性中後而有而無是也。中後假者，說用中體中竟，方說而有而無，正是動而常寂、寂而常用，乃是方便智化眾生。又中前假從用入體，中後假從體起用。問：第一方言出諸師計，後方言出諸師三中不成，云何異耶？答：第一方言破性外道八迷，破性明中。但出諸師計，諸法師計亦有性義。亦言正破外、傍破內，故出諸師計。第三方言：云世諦即假生假滅，假生不生、假滅不滅，不生不滅為世諦中道，非不生非不滅為真諦中道。二諦合明中道者，非生滅非不生滅。問：此與上何異？答：此有二意。一者即世諦生是不生，如色即是空，故不生即是世諦。真諦不生者，此即相因義，因世諦生明真諦不生。二者世諦中不生不滅，即是真諦假，非是破性明中。為明世諦假生，雖生不起；世諦假滅，雖滅不失，故生滅宛然而未曾生滅，故世諦中即是真諦假。問：此與上何異？答：雖同生滅為俗、不生滅為真，但不生有三種：初方言破定性生明不生，第二方言破假生明不生，此中有異，破定性生但破不收，破假生亦破亦收。第三方言約平道門本來不生故言不生，不言破病也。第二就二諦明中道。此中有三意：第一單義論單複、第二複義論單複、第三就二諦論單複。就初有兩：初正明單複、後明互相出入。今先正論單複中假義。偏說一假有、不說無，是單假。偏說一假無、不說有，亦是單假。偏說一非有，即是單中；非無亦爾。雙說假有假無，是複假。雙說非有非無，是複中。次釋其所以。凡有二義：一者為利根人說單假、約鈍根人說複假。正言利根之者聞一悟十，故若聞說假有即解假無，乃至聞說非有即解非無，所以不勞具明兩義。為鈍根之人隨言得解，若不具說，無有玄悟，所以雙明兩義也。二者為鈍根人說單、為利根人說複。為鈍根之人不堪受圓教，所以且說單義破其執。若利根人，堪受圓教，所以為說複義，便皆領受。次明互相出入，有八句：第一從單假入單中，或言假有不名有，從有入非有；無亦例爾。第二從單中出單假，或言非有假說有、非無假說無。第三從複假入複中，假有不名有、假無不名無，有無入非有無。第四從複中出複假，非有非無假說有無。第五從單假入複中，或言假有不名有、假有不名無，從假有入非有非無；假無亦例爾。第六從複中出單假，或言非有非無假說有、非無非有假說無之。第七從複假入單中，有無即非有。第八從單中出複假，非有假說有不有、非無假說無不無。次釋所以，有二義：一者破眾生執實之病，隨計隨遣，所以遂有多句。二者大士觀行神通自在，無有隔礙故，或眼根入正受等，不復委釋。《大品》云「或從散心中起，入滅受定。滅受定起，入散心中」也。第二就複義論單複，亦有二：初正明單複、二明出入。初正明單複中假。假有是俗諦，假無是真諦，此是單假；非有非無是中道，此是單中。假有假無為二是俗諦，非有非無不二為真諦，此是複假；非二非不二是中道，此是複中。正言非二盡有無、非不二盡非有非無，所以是複中。次釋其所以，有二義：一往為言，單中單假明義即淺，複中複假明義即深。所以然者，單家之二諦，至複義時還是俗諦。單家之中道，至複義時還成真諦。單家之中道，正盡有無二，未能盡不二；複家之中道，盡不二也。二者單明義即勝，複明義悉劣。所以然者，複假之有無，猶是前單假之有義；複中之非有非無，猶是前單假之無義；複之非二非不二，猶是前單中之非有非無也。但前直言有，便攝得有無；只直言無，攝得非有非無；只言非有非無，便攝得非二非不二。言略意廣，所以為勝；複家中假，言廣意劣。所以有勝劣。次明互相出入，有八句：第一從單假入單中。假有不名有，假無不名無，入非有非無中道。第二從單中出單假。非有假說有為俗，非無假說無為真。第三從複假入複中。假二不名二，假不二不名不二，入非二非不二中道。第四從複中出複假。非二假說二為俗，非不二假說不二為真。第五從單假入複中。假有不名二，假無不名不二，從假有無入非二非不二中道。第六從複中出單假。非二假說有為俗，非不二假說無為真。第七從複假入單中。假二不名有，假不二不名無，從二不二入非有非無中道。第八從單中出複假。非有假說二為俗，非無假說不二為真。第三階就二諦論單複，有兩：一正明單複、二出入。一者俗諦明單複、二者真諦明單複。假有是俗諦，假無是真諦，是單假。複者，假有假不有，是俗諦複假。假無假不無，真諦複假。非有為中道，此是俗諦單中。以非無為中道，此是真諦單中。非有非不有，此是俗諦複中。非無非不無，此是真諦複中。第二明出入，有三：一就俗、二就真、三交絡。先就世諦明，有八句：第一從俗諦單假入俗諦單中，假有不名有，即是假有入非有。第二從俗諦單中出俗諦單假，非有假說有。第三從俗諦複假入俗諦複中，假有假不有入非有非不有。第四從俗諦複中出俗諦複假，非有非不有假說有非有。第五從俗諦單假入複中，假有入非有非不有。第六從俗諦複中出單假，非有非不有假說為假有。第七從俗諦複假入單中，假有不有入非有。第八從俗諦單中出複假，非有假說有不有。第二就真諦辨，有八句：第一從真諦單假入單中，假無不名無也。第二從真諦單中出單假，非無假說無。第三從真諦複假入複中，假無假不無，非無非不無。第四從真諦複中出複假，非無非不無假說無不無。第五從真諦單假入複中，假無非無，假無非不無。第六從真諦複中出單假，非無非不無假說為無。第七從真諦複假入單中，假無不無入非無。第八從真諦單中出複假，非無假說無不無。交絡明出入，有十二句：第一從俗諦單假入真諦單中，假有不名無，壞有入非無。第二從真諦單中出俗諦單假，非無假說有。第三從真諦單假入俗諦單中，假無不名有，壞無入非有。第四從俗諦單中出真諦單假，非有假說無。第五從俗諦複假入真諦複中，假有假不有，入非無非不無。第六從真諦複中出俗諦複假，非無非不無假說有不有。第七從真諦複假入俗諦複中，假無假不無，入非有非不有。第八從俗諦複中出真諦複假，非有非不有假說無不無。第九從真諦單假入俗諦複中，假無不名有，亦不名不有，即是非有非不有。第十從俗諦複中出真諦單假，非有非不有假說名為無。第十一從俗諦單假入真諦複中，假有不名無，亦不名非無，即是非無非不無。第十二從真諦複中出俗諦單假，非無非不無假說名為有。

Sixth, clarifying the Middle Way. First, clarify the Middle Way with reference to the eight negations; second, clarify the Middle Way with reference to the two truths. In the first [part], the master has three modes of exposition. The first mode of exposition states: The reason why the eight negations are enunciated at the beginning is that one wishes to wash away and purify all minds of attainment. Those of attainment without exception fall into these eight fixations. For example, Hinayānists speak of understanding that can be produced and delusion that can be extinguished, and even sentient beings flowing forth from fundamental ignorance and departing by returning to the root and heading back to the source. Now the eight negations horizontally refute the eight delusions and vertically exhaust the five positions; because in seeking their arising and ceasing they cannot be found, it says 'neither arising nor ceasing'. Arising and ceasing having been dispelled, the five positions—'neither arising nor ceasing', 'both arising-ceasing and not-arising-ceasing', and 'neither arising-ceasing nor not-arising-ceasing'—naturally collapse. Thus, while neither arising nor non-arising is the Middle Way, arising yet not arising is the conventional designation. Conventional arising cannot be called arising and cannot be called non-arising; this is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Conventional non-arising cannot be called non-arising and cannot be called non-non-arising; this is named the Middle Way of ultimate truth. This is discussing the Middle Way separately in each of the two truths. However, the arising and ceasing of conventional truth is the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing; the non-arising-and-ceasing of ultimate truth is the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing. Yet how could the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing be non-arising-and-ceasing? Therefore, neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-ceasing is termed clarifying the Middle Way by combining the two truths. The second mode of exposition states: The reason for clarifying three kinds of Middle Way is to reveal that from the night of attaining the Way to the night of nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata constantly preached the Middle Way. Furthermore, those who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way], and hence fall into the error of bias; now, in response to their failure to establish the meaning of the Middle Way, the three [kinds of] Middle [Way] are distinguished. Question: Why do those who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way]? Answer: Others say that because real dharmas are extinguished, there is no eternalism; because conventional designations are continuous, there is no annihilationism. Now it is held that not being eternal is still annihilationism, and not being annihilated is still eternalism; seeing only annihilationism and eternalism, what Middle Way can there be? In response to this failure to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way], the three kinds of Middle Way are clarified. Now in clarifying the Middle Way: the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing is the Middle of conventional truth; the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing is the Middle of ultimate truth. How could the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing be non-arising-and-ceasing? Therefore, neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-ceasing is clarifying the Middle Way by combining the two truths. Question: How does this subsequent clarification of the three [kinds of] Middle [Way] differ from the preceding one? Answer: The preceding clarification of the Middle Way of the two truths was the conventionality of dependent co-arising, termed the Middle [Way] of refuting intrinsic nature. The third [kind], which doubly dissolves the two conventionalities, is called the Middle of essence, and is also called the Middle Way that expresses dependent co-arising. Therefore, the preceding statements have four gradations: First, in the four propositions of the initial chapter, because intrinsic existence and non-existence cannot be found upon seeking, it states that neither existence nor non-existence is named the Middle Way. When non-Buddhists hear 'neither existence nor non-existence', they immediately think that there are no longer the two truths of ultimate and conventional, and thereby give rise to the view of annihilationism. Therefore, second, it speaks of 'both existing and non-existing' as the two truths to receive their annihilative mind. Third, wishing to reveal that 'both existing and non-existing' clarifies that this is the Middle Way, and that it is the existence and non-existence of dependent co-arising and does not share your sense of intrinsic existence and non-existence, third, it clarifies the Middle of function of the two truths, doubly rebuking both intrinsic natures. Fourth, next wishing to overturn the duality of conventional existence and non-existence, it clarifies the Middle of essence. First it clarifies the emptiness of intrinsic nature; second, it clarifies conventionality; third, it clarifies the Middle of function; fourth, it clarifies the Middle of essence. Thus there are four gradations. These are the four gradations maintained from beginning to end by [Falang of] Mount She and Xinghuang [Temple] in response to traditional doctrines. One who grasps this intent understands the fourfold intent of that one master in establishing the Middle Way, conventionality, essence, and function. Furthermore, taking initial non-intrinsic existence and non-existence as the Middle [Way] is the meaning of the Middle preceding conventionality. Next, taking 'both existing and non-existing' as the two truths is the meaning of conventionality following the Middle. Next, conventional existence not being existence and conventional non-existence not being non-existence, with the two truths jointly clarifying the Middle Way, is the meaning of the Middle following conventionality. Question: In the Middle [Way] of refuting intrinsic nature and the Middle Way expressing dependent co-arising, what are conventionality preceding the Middle and conventionality following the Middle? Answer: Conventionality preceding the Middle means that before the Middle of essence has been taught, conventionality is first clarified; this is what was referred to above as 'both existing and non-existing' following the refutation of intrinsic nature. Conventionality following the Middle means that after the Middle of function and the Middle of essence have been taught, one then speaks of 'both existing and non-existing', which is precisely being constantly quiescent while in motion and constantly functioning while in quiescence; this is the gnosis of skillful means transforming sentient beings. Furthermore, conventionality preceding the Middle enters essence from function; conventionality following the Middle gives rise to function from essence. Question: The first mode of exposition sets forth the assertions of various masters, and the subsequent mode of exposition sets forth the failure of various masters to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way]; how do they differ? Answer: The first mode of exposition refutes the eight delusions of non-Buddhists concerning intrinsic nature, clarifying the Middle [Way] by refuting intrinsic nature. Although it sets forth the assertions of various masters, the assertions of the various Dharma masters also contain notions of intrinsic nature. It is also said that it primarily refutes what is external and secondarily refutes what is internal; hence it sets forth the assertions of various masters. The third mode of exposition states: Conventional truth is conventional arising and conventional ceasing; conventional arising is non-arising, and conventional ceasing is non-ceasing; neither arising nor ceasing is the Middle Way of conventional truth, and neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is the Middle Way of ultimate truth. The Middle Way clarified by combining the two truths is neither arising-ceasing nor non-arising-ceasing. Question: How does this differ from the above? Answer: This has two meanings. First, the arising of conventional truth is itself non-arising, just as form is itself emptiness; therefore, non-arising is precisely conventional truth. The non-arising of ultimate truth is the meaning of mutual dependence: dependent upon the arising of conventional truth, the non-arising of ultimate truth is clarified. Second, non-arising and non-ceasing within conventional truth is precisely the conventionality of ultimate truth; it is not clarifying the Middle [Way] by refuting intrinsic nature. In order to clarify that conventional arising in conventional truth, though arising, does not originate, and conventional ceasing in conventional truth, though ceasing, is not lost, arising and ceasing are fully apparent yet have never arisen or ceased; thus the Middle of conventional truth is precisely the conventionality of ultimate truth. Question: How does this differ from the above? Answer: Although both agree in taking arising and ceasing as conventional and non-arising and non-ceasing as ultimate, non-arising has three kinds: The first mode of exposition refutes arising of fixed intrinsic nature to clarify non-arising. The second mode of exposition refutes conventional arising to clarify non-arising; herein lies a difference: refuting arising of fixed intrinsic nature only refutes without gathering in, whereas refuting conventional arising both refutes and gathers in. The third mode of exposition, based on the gate of the level way, says 'unborn' because it is fundamentally unborn, without speaking of refuting defects. Second, clarifying the Middle Way with reference to the two truths. Herein there are three meanings: first, discussing simple and complex with reference to a single meaning; second, discussing simple and complex with reference to complex meanings; third, discussing simple and complex with reference to the two truths. Regarding the first, there are two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, clarifying mutual entry and exit. Now we first directly discuss the meaning of the simple and complex Middle [Way] and conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single conventional existence without speaking of non-existence is simple conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single conventional non-existence without speaking of existence is also simple conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single non-existence is simple Middle [Way]; non-non-existence is also like this. Jointly speaking of conventional existence and conventional non-existence is complex conventionality. Jointly speaking of neither existence nor non-existence is complex Middle [Way]. Next, explaining the reason for this. There are altogether two meanings: First, simple conventionality is taught for persons of sharp faculties, and complex conventionality is stated for persons of dull faculties. Precisely because persons of sharp faculties understand ten upon hearing one, if they hear conventional existence taught they immediately understand conventional non-existence, and even hearing non-existence taught they immediately understand non-non-existence; therefore there is no need to clarify both meanings fully. For persons of dull faculties, they attain understanding in accordance with words; if it is not spoken fully, they will have no profound awakening; therefore both meanings are clarified together. Second, the simple is taught for persons of dull faculties, and the complex is taught for persons of sharp faculties. Because persons of dull faculties cannot receive the complete teaching, the simple meaning is temporarily taught to refute their attachments. If they are persons of sharp faculties, they are capable of receiving the complete teaching, and so the complex meaning is taught for them, and they accept it entirely. Next, clarifying mutual entry and exit, which has eight propositions: First, from simple conventionality entering simple Middle: or stating that conventional existence is not called existence, entering non-existence from existence; non-existence is also analogous to this. Second, from simple Middle issuing into simple conventionality: or stating that from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence. Third, from complex conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional existence is not called existence, conventional non-existence is not called non-existence; entering neither existence nor non-existence from existence and non-existence. Fourth, from complex Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from neither existence nor non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence and non-existence. Fifth, from simple conventionality entering complex Middle: or stating that conventional existence is not called existence and conventional existence is not called non-existence; entering neither existence nor non-existence from conventional existence; conventional non-existence is also analogous to this. Sixth, from complex Middle issuing into simple conventionality: or stating that from neither existence nor non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence, and from neither non-existence nor existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence. Seventh, from complex conventionality entering simple Middle: existence and non-existence are precisely non-existence. Eighth, from simple Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence and non-existence; from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence and non-non-existence. Next, explaining the reasons, there are two meanings: First, to refute sentient beings' disease of grasping at real entities; as their fixations arise they are dispelled, and therefore there are ultimately many propositions. Second, the great beings are sovereign in contemplation, practice, and supernormal powers, being free of obstacles; thus, for instance, entering correct absorption with the eye faculty and so forth, which will not be explained in detail again. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā states: 'Or arising from a distracted mind, one enters the concentration of the cessation of sensation; arising from the concentration of the cessation of sensation, one enters a distracted mind.' Second, discussing simple and complex with reference to complex meanings also has two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, clarifying entry and exit. First, directly clarifying simple and complex Middle [Way] and conventionality. Conventional existence is conventional truth, conventional non-existence is ultimate truth: this is simple conventionality. Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle Way: this is simple Middle [Way]. Conventional existence and conventional non-existence as dual is conventional truth; neither existence nor non-existence as non-dual is ultimate truth: this is complex conventionality. Neither dual nor non-dual is the Middle Way: this is complex Middle [Way]. Precisely because neither dual exhausts existence and non-existence, and neither non-dual exhausts neither existence nor non-existence, it is the complex Middle [Way]. Next, explaining the reason for this, there are two meanings: Generally speaking, the meaning clarified by the simple Middle and simple conventionality is shallow, while the meaning clarified by the complex Middle and complex conventionality is deep. Why is this so? The two truths of the simple approach, when arriving at the complex meaning, are still conventional truth. The Middle Way of the simple approach, when arriving at the complex meaning, still becomes ultimate truth. The Middle Way of the simple approach directly exhausts the duality of existence and non-existence, but cannot yet exhaust non-duality; the Middle Way of the complex approach exhausts non-duality as well. Second, the meaning clarified simply is superior, while the meaning clarified complexly is inferior. Why is this so? The existence and non-existence of complex conventionality is still the meaning of existence in the previous simple conventionality; the neither existence nor non-existence of the complex Middle is still the meaning of non-existence in the previous simple conventionality; the neither dual nor non-dual of the complex is still the neither existence nor non-existence of the previous simple Middle. Just by directly speaking of existence, existence and non-existence are already subsumed; just by directly speaking of non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence is subsumed; just by speaking of neither existence nor non-existence, neither dual nor non-dual is already subsumed. Its words are concise yet its meaning is broad, and therefore it is superior; the Middle and conventionality of the complex approach are verbose in words yet inferior in meaning. Therefore there is superiority and inferiority. Next, clarifying mutual entry and exit, there are eight propositions: First, from simple conventionality entering simple Middle: conventional existence is not called existence, conventional non-existence is not called non-existence; entering the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence. Second, from simple Middle issuing into simple conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence as conventional, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence as ultimate. Third, from complex conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional duality is not called duality, conventional non-duality is not called non-duality; entering the Middle Way of neither dual nor non-dual. Fourth, from complex Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from neither dual one conventionally speaks of duality as conventional, and from neither non-dual one conventionally speaks of non-duality as ultimate. Fifth, from simple conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional existence is not called dual, conventional non-existence is not called non-dual; from conventional existence and non-existence entering the Middle Way of neither dual nor non-dual. Sixth, from complex Middle issuing into simple conventionality: from neither dual one conventionally speaks of existence as conventional, and from neither non-dual one conventionally speaks of non-existence as ultimate. Seventh, from complex conventionality entering simple Middle: conventional duality is not called existence, conventional non-duality is not called non-existence; from duality and non-duality entering the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence. Eighth, from simple Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of duality as conventional, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-duality as ultimate. The third stage, discussing simple and complex with reference to the two truths, has two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, entry and exit. First, clarifying simple and complex in conventional truth; second, clarifying simple and complex in ultimate truth. Conventional existence is conventional truth, conventional non-existence is ultimate truth: this is simple conventionality. As for the complex: conventional existence and conventional non-existence are the complex conventionality of conventional truth. Conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence are the complex conventionality of ultimate truth. Taking non-existence as the Middle Way: this is the simple Middle of conventional truth. Taking non-non-existence as the Middle Way: this is the simple Middle of ultimate truth. Neither existence nor non-existence is the complex Middle of conventional truth. Neither non-existence nor non-non-existence is the complex Middle of ultimate truth. Second, clarifying entry and exit has three [parts]: first, with reference to conventional; second, with reference to ultimate; third, interwoven. First, clarifying with reference to conventional truth, there are eight propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle of conventional truth: conventional existence is not called existence, which is precisely entering non-existence from conventional existence. Second, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from non-existence conventionally speaking of existence. Third, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional existence and conventional non-existence enter neither existence nor non-existence. Fourth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the complex conventionality of conventional truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Fifth, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle: conventional existence enters neither existence nor non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into simple conventionality: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of conventional existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle: conventional existence and non-existence enter non-existence. Eighth, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Second, distinguishing with reference to ultimate truth, there are eight propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle: conventional non-existence is not called non-existence. Second, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into simple conventionality: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Third, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle: conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence [enter] neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Fourth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into complex conventionality: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Fifth, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle: conventional non-existence is not non-existence, and conventional non-existence is not non-non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into simple conventionality: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle: conventional non-existence and non-non-existence enter non-non-existence. Eighth, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into complex conventionality: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Interwoven clarification of entry and exit has twelve propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence is not called non-existence; breaking down existence and entering non-non-existence. Second, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence. Third, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence is not called existence; breaking down non-existence and entering non-existence. Fourth, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of ultimate truth: from non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Fifth, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence and conventional non-existence enter neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the complex conventionality of conventional truth: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence enter neither existence nor non-existence. Eighth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the complex conventionality of ultimate truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Ninth, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence is not called existence and is also not called non-existence, which is precisely neither existence nor non-existence. Tenth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of ultimate truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Eleventh, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence is not called non-existence and is also not called non-non-existence, which is precisely neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Twelfth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence.