肇論 1.65

1.65

無名曰：有無之數，誠以法無不該、理無不統。然其所統，俗諦而已。經曰：「真諦何耶？涅槃道是。俗諦何耶？有無法是。」何則？有者有於無，無者無於有。有無所以稱有，無有所以稱無。然則有生於無、無生於有，離有無無、離無無有。有無相生。其猶高下相傾，有高必有下，有下必有高矣。然則有無雖殊，俱未免於有也。此乃言象之所以形，是非之所以生。豈是以統夫幽極、擬夫神道者乎！是以論稱出有無者，良以有無之數止乎六境之內，六境之內非涅槃之宅，故借出以祛之。庶悕道之流，髣髴幽途，託情絕域，得意忘言，體其非有非無。豈曰有無之外，別有一有而可稱哉？經曰「三無為」者，蓋是群生紛繞，生乎篤患；篤患之尤，莫先於有；絕有之稱，莫先於無，故借無以明其非有。明其非有，非謂無也。

The Nameless One said: "The order of being and non-being indeed leaves no dharma uncovered and no principle ununified. But what it unifies is merely saṃvṛti-satya. The sūtra says: 'What is paramārtha-satya? It is the path of nirvāṇa. What is saṃvṛti-satya? It is the dharmas of being and non-being.' Why is this? Being is being relative to non-being; non-being is non-being relative to being. Being is called 'being' because of non-being; non-being is called 'non-being' because of being. Thus, being arises from non-being, and non-being arises from being; apart from being there is no non-being, and apart from non-being there is no being. Being and non-being give birth to each other. It is like high and low inclining toward each other: where there is high, there must be low; where there is low, there must be high. Thus, though being and non-being are distinct, neither has yet escaped being. This is the source from which words and images take form, and from which right and wrong arise. How could this be used to unify the profound culmination or measure the spiritual path! Therefore, when the treatise speaks of transcending being and non-being, it is truly because the order of being and non-being stops within the six sense objects; and since within the six sense objects is not the abode of nirvāṇa, it borrows the notion of 'transcendence' to dispel them. This is in the hope that those who seek the Path may faintly discern the profound journey, entrust their feelings to the realm beyond, grasp the meaning and forget the words, and realize its state of being neither being nor non-being. How could it mean that outside being and non-being there is separately an entity that can be designated? As for what the sūtra calls the 'three asaṃskṛtas,' it is because the myriad living beings are confused and entangled, giving rise to grievous suffering; and of grievous suffering, none comes before being. To cut off the designation of being, none comes before non-being; hence it borrows non-being to clarify that it is not being. To clarify that it is not being does not mean that it is non-being."