肇論疏 1.71

1.71

第三、破晉朝竺法汰本無義也。情尚於無多觸言而賓無者，情多貴尚此無也，觸言皆向無也。賓者，客也，客皆向主。今本無宗言，皆向無也。《爾雅》云：賓，服也。言服無，故云賓無耳也。故非有有即無非無無即無者，謂經中言非有者，無有此有也；言非無者，無有彼無也。尋夫立文之本旨者，有本作「文」，有本作「無」，今用「文」也，謂尋經文本意也。直以非有非真有非無非真無者，真，實也。非實定是有，故言非有；非實定是無，故言非無耳。何必非有無此有非無無彼無者，不言非有無却此有、非無無却彼無也。此直好無之談者，直是好尚於無，故觸言向無耳。豈所謂順通事實即物之情哉者，不順萬事之實性，不得即物之實性也。

Third, refuting the doctrine of Original Non-being of Zhu Fatai of the Jin dynasty. "Their sentiments value non-being, so whenever they speak, they submit to non-being": their sentiments mostly prize and esteem this non-being, so whenever they speak, they incline toward non-being. "Submit to" (賓) means a guest; guests all turn toward the host. Now the Original Non-being lineage in its words always inclines toward non-being. The Erya says: "Bin means submit." It means submitting to non-being, hence it says "submit to non-being." "Therefore, 'non-existence' means that existence is non-existent, and 'non-non-existence' means that non-existence is non-existent": this means that when the scripture says "non-existence," it means there is no such existence; when it says "non-non-existence," it means there is no such non-existence. "If one examines the fundamental intention of establishing the text": some editions have "text" (文), and some have "non-being" (無); here we use "text" (文), which means examining the original intention of the scriptural text. "It is merely that 'non-existence' is not real existence, and 'non-non-existence' is not real non-existence": "real" (真) means actual. It is not actually and definitively existent, hence it is called "non-existence"; it is not actually and definitively non-existent, hence it is called "non-non-existence." "Why must 'non-existence' negate this existence, and 'non-non-existence' negate that non-existence?": it does not mean that "non-existence" wipes out this existence, and "non-non-existence" wipes out that non-existence. "This is merely talk of fondness for non-being": this is merely being fond of and prizing non-being, so whenever they speak, they incline toward non-being. "How could this be called according with and penetrating actual phenomena, or conforming to the reality of things?": this does not accord with the true nature of the ten thousand phenomena, nor does it attain the real nature of things as they are.