摩訶止觀 5.268

5.268

「若聞阿字門，即解一切義。」云何秖作一解耶？利钁斵地，徹至金剛；聞一不生，遍解法界不生。將諸不生，勘汝執心，了無一分，非見是何？有人難《中論》云「不生不滅」未會深理。何者？煩惱是生法，三相遷謝是滅法；秖不此生滅，故言不生不滅。但是入空，不見中意。《中論》師解云：「不生不滅者，不不生、不不滅，以顯中道。」此解扶中，而傷文失義。何者？龍樹之意，兼通含別，故言「不生不滅」。不生者，不二十五有之生，不三相遷滅之滅，能破二十種身見，成須陀洹乃至無學。豈非兼申通意，亦兼三藏意？若生、若滅皆屬於生；涅槃但空唯屬寂滅。不此之生，不此之滅，雙遮二邊，豈非含別之意？若生滅是因緣所生法，即空即假即中。即空故不生，即假故不滅，不生不滅即是中道。按文解釋，兼二，含別顯中，四義宛然。龍樹之巧，以「不生不滅」一句，廣攝諸法，乃會摩訶衍耳。若開脣動舌，重吃鳳兮之聲；抽筆染毫，加於點淰之字；秖得一意，全失三門。懸疣附贅，雖欲補助，還成漏失。

"If one hears the syllable A, one understands all meanings." Why would one produce only a single interpretation? A sharp mattock strikes the ground, penetrating down to the diamond; hearing the single 'unborn', one comprehensively understands the non-arising of the dharmadhātu. Examining your grasping mind against all these non-arisings, it has not a single fraction of them; if it is not a view, what is it? Someone objected to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, saying that 'neither arising nor ceasing' fails to reach the deep principle. Why? Afflictions are dharmas that arise, and the passing away of the three characteristics is the dharma of ceasing; it is merely not this arising and ceasing, which is why it says 'neither arising nor ceasing'. This only enters emptiness and does not see the meaning of the middle. A commentator on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā explained: "'Neither arising nor ceasing' means neither not arising nor not ceasing, thereby revealing the middle way." This explanation supports the middle, yet harms the text and loses the meaning. Why? Nāgārjuna's intention concurrently encompassed the shared [teaching] and contained the distinctive [teaching], which is why he said 'neither arising nor ceasing'. 'Not arising' means not the arising of the twenty-five realms of existence, and not the ceasing of the transition and demise of the three characteristics, being able to destroy the twenty types of identity views and accomplish [the stages from] srotāpanna up to the one beyond study. Does this not concurrently express the meaning of the shared [teaching] and also concurrently the meaning of the Tripiṭaka? Arising and ceasing both belong to arising; nirvāṇa as mere emptiness belongs solely to cessation. Neither this arising nor this ceasing double-negates the two extremes—how could this not be the intention containing the distinctive [teaching]? If arising and ceasing are dharmas produced by causes and conditions, they are precisely empty, precisely provisional, and precisely the middle. Being precisely empty, they do not arise; being precisely provisional, they do not cease; neither arising nor ceasing is precisely the middle way. Explaining according to the text, it concurrently includes the two, contains the distinctive, and reveals the middle—the four meanings are completely present. Nāgārjuna's skill lay in broadly subsuming all dharmas with the single phrase 'neither arising nor ceasing', thereby tallying with the Mahāyāna. If one moves the lips and stirs the tongue, stammering the sound of 'Phoenix, oh phoenix!' repeatedly; or takes up the brush and dips it in ink, adding smeared dots and strokes—one merely obtains a single meaning and completely loses the three gates. Like a hanging wart or an attached tumor, though wishing to supplement, one ends up with flaws and omissions.