華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.8

4.8

Regarding the other-dependent nature: Question: "Is the other-dependent existent?" Answer: "No, because it is dependently originated and without nature." Question: "Is the other-dependent nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is dependent origination that lacks a nature." 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 possesses multiple approaches of meaning." Again, question: "Is it existent?" Answer: "No, because of dependent origination. Why is that? Because all dependent originations are without nature." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is without nature. Why is that? Because being without nature, it constitutes dependent origination." The remaining two phrases can be understood [accordingly]. Furthermore, because dependent origination [transcends] the four phrases, and also because being without nature it is also free from the four phrases, all of this can be understood. Again, question: "Is the other-dependent existent?" Answer: "No, because it is eliminated according to contemplation." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it can manifest non-arising." The lower two phrases can be understood because they are free from contradiction and free from conceptual proliferation. Again, question: "Is it existent?" Answer: "No, because it is different from the fully perfected, and also in terms of the parikalpita fraction, and also because it is free from what is referred to [by words]." Question: "Is it nonexistent?" Answer: "No, because it is different from the imagined, because of the fully perfected fraction, and also because it is an object of gnosis." The remaining phrases correspond to this.