華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.9

4.9

遍計所執者，問：「遍計是有耶？」答：「不也，理無故。」問：「是無耶？」答：「不也，情有故。」問：「亦有亦無耶？」答：「不也，無二性故。」問：「非有非無耶？」答：「不也，所執性故。」又問：「有耶？」答：「不也，無道理故。」問：「無耶？」答：「不也，無道理故。」餘句準知。又問：「有耶？」「不也，執有故。」又問：「無耶？」「不也，執有故。」又「亦有亦無耶？」「不也，執有故。」又「非有非無耶？」「不也，執成故。」又「有耶？」「不也，由無相故。」又「無耶？」「不也，無相觀境故。」餘句準之。又「有耶？」「不也，無體故。」又「無耶？」「不也，能曀真故。」餘句準之。

Regarding the imagined [nature]: Question: "Is the imagined existent?" Answer: "No, because it does not exist in principle." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it exists in subjective sentiment." Question: "Is it both existent and nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it lacks a dual nature." Question: "Is it neither existent nor nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is the nature of what is grasped." Again, question: "Is it existent?" Answer: "No, because it lacks reason." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it lacks reason." The remaining phrases are to be understood by analogy. Again, question: "Is it existent?" "No, because it is clung to as existent." Again, question: "Is it nonexistent?" "No, because it is clung to as existent." Again: "Is it both existent and nonexistent?" "No, because it is clung to as existent." Again: "Is it neither existent nor nonexistent?" "No, because it is constituted by clinging." Again: "Is it existent?" "No, because it is markless." Again: "Is it nonexistent?" "No, because it is the cognitive object of markless contemplation." The remaining phrases correspond to this. Again: "Is it existent?" "No, because it has no substance." Again: "Is it nonexistent?" "No, because it can obscure the true." The remaining phrases correspond to this.