Sarvadarshanasangraha 2.56

2.56

In the same way, one should also cultivate [the thought]: "Void, void." For in dreaming and in waking, a qualified negation is observed: "This silver or the like was not seen by me." If what was seen were real, then the seeing qualified by that, the "this-ness", the substrate, the silverness and so forth superimposed upon it, and their relation, such as inherence, would all have reality. Nor is this accepted by any debater. Nor is a half-and-half view (the maxim of the half-aged woman) appropriate; for one cannot suppose that one part of a hen is for cooking and the other part is for laying eggs. Therefore, among the superimposed, the substrate, their relation, the seeing, and the seers, if one or many are unreal, it follows by force [of logic] that all are unreal because they are the object of negation. When the Blessed One taught this, the Mādhyamikas, possessing supreme intellect, explained as follows: On the principle of the wandering monk stretching out his feet, through the approach of stating momentary destruction and the like, by dispelling the delusions of permanence, pleasurable experience, generic continuity, and the reality of everything, [the teaching] culminates only in the voidness of everything. Therefore, the principle is just the void, freed from the four alternatives consisting of real, unreal, both, and neither. To explain: If reality were the intrinsic nature of a pot or the like, then the operation of causal factors would be useless. If the position were that unreality is its intrinsic nature, the very same flaw would manifest, as has been said: