摩訶止觀 5.270

5.270

二者、犢子道人，計我在第五不可說藏中，此是一不生；不生亦不生，故名不不生。若三藏二乘，斷三界見思，一不不見，一不不思，故名不不生，而習氣猶生。若三藏佛，正、習俱盡，名不不生。一不不正，一不不習，故言「不不生」。此析法不不生。若通教，體見本不生，體思本不生，故言「不不生」。《思益》云：「我於無生無作，而得作證。」二乘雖體不見思，而習氣猶生。通教佛坐道場，正習俱盡，亦是不不生。此乃分段不不生耳。若別教人，斷通別惑，一不不通，一不不別，名不不生。此一品一分、二品二分不不生耳；上分猶生。若別教佛，上分盡，名不不生。此猶是方便權說不不生。若圓人，一不不通，一不不別，名不不生。猶居因地，猶有上地行、智、報等生在。若妙覺智滿，其智更不生；無明究竟盡，惑更不生；行、智、報等，畢竟不不生。又真理極故，一不不生；圓理極故，一不不生。又理本本不生，今亦不不生。若作單不生語，攝法亦盡，如前說。若作不不生語，攝法亦盡。汝作不生，齊何處不生？汝作不不生，復齊何處不不生？他尚不識外道不不生，況識最後不不生？那得不愜是見？當苦破之。

Second, the Vātsīputrīya renunciant posited that the self is in the fifth, inexpressible treasury; this is one 'not arising'. Non-arising also does not arise, hence it is called 'not not-arising'. In the Tripiṭaka [teaching] of the two vehicles, cutting off the views and desires of the three realms, there is one not-not-view and one not-not-desire, hence it is called 'not not-arising', yet habit-energies still arise. For the Tripiṭaka Buddha, both primary defilements and habit-energies are exhausted, which is called 'not not-arising'. There is one not-not-primary and one not-not-habit, hence it is called 'not not-arising'. This is the 'not not-arising' of the analysis of dharmas. In the shared teaching, realizing that views fundamentally do not arise and realizing that desires fundamentally do not arise, it is called 'not not-arising'. The Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā says: "I have attained realization within the unborn and uncreated." Although the two vehicles realize that views and desires do not arise, habit-energies still arise. When the Buddha of the shared teaching sits at the bodhimaṇḍa, both primary defilements and habit-energies are exhausted, which is also 'not not-arising'. This is merely the 'not not-arising' of fragmented [samsāra]. For a person of the distinctive teaching, severing shared and distinctive delusions, there is one not-not-shared and one not-not-distinctive, which is called 'not not-arising'. This is only the 'not not-arising' of one rank and one portion, or two ranks and two portions; higher portions still arise. When the Buddha of the distinctive teaching exhausts the higher portions, it is called 'not not-arising'. This is still the 'not not-arising' of expedient, provisional explanation. For a person of the perfect [teaching], one not-not-shared and one not-not-distinctive is called 'not not-arising'. Still abiding on the causal ground, there still arise the practice, wisdom, and retribution of the higher stages. When the wisdom of marvelous enlightenment is fully perfected, that wisdom arises no more; avidyā being definitively exhausted, delusions arise no more; practice, wisdom, retribution, and so forth are ultimately not not-arising. Furthermore, because the true principle is ultimate, there is one not-not-arising; because the perfect principle is ultimate, there is one not-not-arising. Furthermore, the principle is fundamentally not arising, and now is also not not-arising. If one speaks of simple 'not arising', it subsumes all dharmas completely, as explained before. If one speaks of 'not not-arising', it also subsumes all dharmas completely. When you speak of 'not arising', to what level of non-arising does it equate? When you speak of 'not not-arising', to what level of not not-arising does it equate? Others do not even recognize the 'not not-arising' of tīrthikas, let alone the ultimate 'not not-arising'! How could it not be appropriate to call this a view? It must be vigorously refuted.