華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.20

4.20

第三、遍計所執性中，若計所執為有者，有二過失：謂若所執是其有者，聖智所照理應不空，即是常也；若妄執遍計於理有者，即失情有，故是斷過也。二、若執遍計為情無者，即凡夫迷倒，不異於聖，即是常也；亦即無凡，故是斷也。又既無迷，亦即無悟，亦無悟故即無聖人，亦是斷也。三、亦有亦無者，性既無二，而謂有無，即相違故，具上失也。四、非有非無者，戲論遍計亦具上失，準以知之。第二執成過竟。

Third, regarding the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva): if one imagines what is grasped to be existent, there are two faults: if what is grasped were existent, it should not be empty when illuminated by holy wisdom, which would be [the fault of] permanence; and if one deludedly clings to the imagined as existent in principle, that forfeits its emotional existence, which is the fault of annihilation. Second, if one clings to the imagined as mentally nonexistent, then ordinary beings in their delusion and error would not differ from sages, which is [the fault of] permanence; furthermore, there would be no ordinary beings, which is [the fault of] annihilation. Moreover, since there would be no delusion, there would also be no awakening; and because there is no awakening, there would be no sages, which is also [the fault of] annihilation. Third, regarding 'both existent and nonexistent': since the nature is non-dual, to assert both existence and nonexistence is contradictory, and thus incurs the aforementioned faults. Fourth, regarding 'neither existent nor nonexistent': this conceptual proliferation about the imagined nature also incurs the aforementioned faults, which may be understood by analogy. The second section, establishing the faults of attachment, is completed.