肇論疏 1.85

1.85

Second, explaining the intention of the scriptures. Wrong view views [things as] non-existent; if one says things are determinately non-existent, then should wrong view not be a delusion? As for 'If one says that things are existent, then eternalist views would be correct,' eternalist view views [things as] existent; if one says things are determinately existent, then should eternalist view not be a delusion? 'Because things are not non-existent' and so on reviews the clauses above, as can be seen. 'Thus, neither existent nor non-existent is truly the discourse of paramārtha-satya': neither existent nor non-existent is the teaching of paramārtha-satya.