觀相門第四
Chapter 4: The Gate of Contemplation
所以有此門者，有通、別二義。通意有三：一者根性不同悟入各異，自有聞求四緣無四不悟，聞撿三相無三而得道，故說三相門。二者欲通釋諸方等經，經中自有明四緣畢竟空，自有明三相畢竟空。佛世利根聞並皆得道；末世鈍根尋之未悟，故論主曲釋也。三者經有歷法明空、歷法觀行，論亦如是，故有此門來也。問：今為申三相、為破三相？答：具有二義。原佛說三相者，無名相中為眾生故強名相說，此是無三說三。所以無三說三者，欲令眾生因三悟不三。問：何故無三說三，令因三悟不三？答：無三說三，破於常倒。既為三相所遷，豈有常耶？因三悟不三，息無常倒。言其無常者，明其無有常，寧有於無常？八倒既除，則累無不寂、則顯真實相，故非常無常便是法身，故德無不圓。此是不三三、三不三之大意也。又無三說三令識佛智，說三悟不三謂如來智，任運現前為自然智，不從師得為無師智。三世十方諸佛有所施作常為一事，故知說三為開四智、同歸一乘。說三既爾，四緣及一切諸法亦應如是知。又十方三世諸佛為一大事故出，如《大品》云「般若為大事故起，示是道非道。」無三說三，隨顛倒故，說示非道；因三悟不三，今示是道。又三世諸佛說法不出權實二門，無三說三是方便隨宜門、令因三悟不三此是真實門。現《中論》破緣緣偈，佛滅後大小有所得人並不識此意，故論主申此意破外人謂三故三病也。問：經具有三不三、不三三，論何故但申三不三？答如上，不三三是權門、三不三為實門。今論實道，又是諸佛本意。又既識三不三，即申不三三，故下明二諦也。問：經何處有不三三、三不三文耶？答：諸方等經遍有文，略引《大品》、《淨名》。《大品》「色無常，不可得故。」色無常即不三三，不可得謂三不三，具破八倒、備開實相中道也。《淨名》「不生不滅是無常義」亦爾。
Therefore, regarding this gateway, there are two meanings: the general and the specific. The general meaning has three aspects: First, because people's capacities differ, their ways of awakening vary. Some hear about the four conditions and, without needing all four, awaken; others hear about the three marks and, without needing all three, attain the Way. Hence, the gateway of the three marks is taught. Second, it aims to broadly explain the various Vaipulya sutras. Within these sutras, some clearly explain that the four conditions are ultimately empty, while others clearly explain that the three marks are ultimately empty. In the Buddha's time, those with sharp faculties heard this and all attained the Way; in the final age, those with dull faculties searched but did not awaken, so the Treatise Master explained it in detail. Third, the sutras teach emptiness through each phenomenon and contemplation through each phenomenon, and the Treatise does the same. Thus, this gateway appears.
Question: Does this gateway now aim to affirm the three marks or to refute them? Answer: It has both meanings. Originally, the Buddha taught the three marks as a way, for beings, to speak of marks within the nameless and markless, by force of convention. This is "speaking of three where there are none." Why speak of three where there are none? To lead beings, through the three, to awaken to the non-three. Question: Why speak of three where there are none, and lead beings through the three to awaken to the non-three? Answer: Speaking of three where there are none refutes the view of permanence. If one is subject to the three marks, how could there be permanence? Through the three, one awakens to the non-three, which stills the view of impermanence. Saying something is impermanent clarifies that it has no permanence—how could it then have impermanence? Once the eight inverted views are removed, all burdens are stilled and the true mark is revealed. Thus, being neither permanent nor impermanent is the Dharma body, and so virtues are all complete. This is the great meaning of "non-three as three, and three as non-three."
Furthermore, speaking of three where there are none allows one to recognize the Buddha's wisdom. Through the three, awakening to the non-three is called the Tathagata's wisdom. Arising spontaneously is called natural wisdom. Not derived from a teacher is called teacherless wisdom. All Buddhas of the three times and ten directions act always for one single purpose. Therefore, know that the teaching of the three is to open up the four wisdoms and to return to the one vehicle. Since the teaching of the three is thus, the four conditions and all dharmas should be understood in the same way.
Moreover, the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times appear for one great purpose, as the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra* says: "Prajna arises for a great purpose, showing what is the path and what is not the path." Speaking of three where there are none follows from inverted views, showing what is not the path. Through the three, awakening to the non-three now reveals what is the path.
Furthermore, the teachings of the Buddhas of the three times do not go beyond the two gateways of the provisional and the real. Speaking of three where there are none is the provisional, adaptive gateway. Through the three, awakening to the non-three is the real gateway. Now, looking at the *Middle Way Treatise*'s verse refuting conditions, after the Buddha's passing, those with attachments, whether great or small, did not recognize this intention. Therefore, the Treatise Master explained this intention to refute the externals' view that the three are truly three, which is a disease.
Question: The sutras contain both "three as non-three" and "non-three as three." Why does the Treatise only explain "three as non-three"? Answer: As above, "non-three as three" is the provisional gateway, while "three as non-three" is the real gateway. Now we discuss the real path, which is also the fundamental intention of all Buddhas. Moreover, once one recognizes "three as non-three," this also clarifies "non-three as three," so below the two truths are explained. Question: Where in the sutras is there text on "non-three as three" and "three as non-three"? Answer: Such passages abound in the Vaipulya sutras; briefly, we can cite the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra* and the *Vimalakirti Sutra*. In the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra*: "Form is impermanent, because it is unattainable." Form being impermanent is "non-three as three." Unattainable means "three as non-three," fully refuting the eight inverted views and completely revealing the real mark—the Middle Way. The *Vimalakirti Sutra*'s "Neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence" is also like this.
次別敘來意。亦有三：一者若就無生義釋者，自上三門就四緣中求生不得，惑者復謂：若諸法畢竟無生，何因緣故經說三相能生諸法耶？今隨外所引，故復破之。所以言隨外所引者，三相猶屬四緣中因緣門，上既求四緣無蹤即無三相；但縱外言有，故就覓無從，故有此門來也。二者上破四緣破別生法，今破三相破通生法。所以四緣是別生法者，如心法備從四緣生，色法從二緣生，非色非心開為二分，無想、滅盡二定從三緣生，自餘不相應法從二緣生，故名別生法。三相通生法者，有為三聚無不備從三相所生，今破三相名破通生法。以通別求生不得，故知畢竟無生。三者三空分之，自上以來明求果及緣不可得，名為空門。此下四品撿相無從，名無相門。稟教之流若於空門悟入，則不須無相門；為於空門不悟，是故次說無相門也。又根性不同，自有樂從空門入、自有從無相門入。又見多者從空門入、愛見等者從無相門入。《百論疏》已具明之。問：何以知此下四品明無相門？答：文云「有為及無為二法俱無相」，則知通破一切諸相，故知是無相門也。上三門破所相，開為總別：初門為總、二門為別。今四門破相亦二：初門正破、後三門縱破。初門正破者，明為無為一切相空。次門縱之，更開二關往責為有為無。若本有相則不須相，若本無相則無法可相。次門更復縱之，必言有相可相者，一異求之應得；一異求既無蹤，不應言有。第三門更復蹤有能相，就有無求之又不可得，故三門名為縱破。又四門即為四意：初門破為無為，正破標相；次門破為無為體相；第三門就一異相雙破標體二相；第四門重責標相。又第一門破通相、第二門破別相、第三門合破通別二相、第四門重破通相。此門稱通相者，以三相通為諸法作相，故名通相。今此品求三相無蹤，故云觀相門。釋三相義，具如《中論》。今更引《婆沙》誠文以解釋之。所以須取《婆沙》釋者，龍樹出世時正對其人。又餘義多是人自造，不足可破也。《婆沙．色品》「問：生住老無常為是色耶、為是非色耶？答：佛經中告諸比丘有三有為相，人不解此義趣故種種解說。譬喻人云：三有為相無有實體。所以者何？三有為相是不相應行行陰所攝，不相應行行陰無有實體。為正此義，明三有為相是實有法。則是實體無實體一雙也。又毘婆闍婆提云：此法是無為。若法是有為者其性羸劣，羸劣故不能生法住法滅法；無為力故能令法生住滅也。又曇摩崛人云：二是有為、一是無為。生住是有為，不能滅法；滅相是無為，故能滅法。為正此二人，明三相是有為。此為無為第二對也。又有異部云：三相是相應法。又為正如此說彼即法沙門義。其人云：色法生住滅則是色體，乃至識亦如是。故今明非是色法亦非心法，而通三性，通學、無學、非學非無學，通見斷、修斷、不斷，但不通無為。此三對，明即法異法也。」問：三相為一時、前後？答：佛但說三相有為。譬喻者云：一剎那中無有三相。若一剎那中有三相者，則一法一時則生則老則無常。此有二過：一者三相便亂。二者共相違，生生滅不得滅、滅滅生不得生，便有失用之過。是故三相前後而生。彼云：法初生時名生，後時名無常，此二中間名老。《婆沙》破此義云：此不如實分別。若初者名生、最後名無常，若作是說則一法無三相。是故今明一法具三相。問：若一法有三相者，云何不一法一時而生則老即無常耶？答：大意明體同時、用前後。以體一時故，無有自起之過，明有為法不能自起，相扶共起，免自起過。生用之時未有住用，住用時生用已廢，故無上過也。問：四相相貌云何？答：世中生為生相；生已而體滿足為住，如初生之外為生乃至果滿足稱住；住已漸衰，如外物萎黃等為異；衰必謝滅，如外物死稱之為滅。問：三相為是總相、為別相？答：一解云是別相，如色自有生住滅，乃至識亦如是。故三相是客相，法體是舊相。又解：三相是總相，以有為法皆有此三，故是總相，故諸法體是別相。又解：非總相亦非別相，以非自體故非別相，各有生住故非總相。問：既非總別相，是何物法？答：此是印誠，若有此印誠是有為、若無此印誠非是有為，如涅槃相非是涅槃體。評云：是總相也。問：為三相、為四相？答：迦旃延舊云生老住無常，後人言生住異滅，故有四相也。或說：三相不明住相，言三相者謂生老無常也，無常即是滅相。問：何故明此三相、不明住相？答：應說住相而不說住者，是有餘之義耳。又今欲示有為法，住相似無為法故不說。又相若能令法歷世者則說是有為，如生相移未來來現在，老與無常移現在行過去；住與彼法相著無捨離時。又分別法相時三相墮有為部中，住相墮無為部中，故不說住。問：老相無常可得示有為相，生相云何示有為相？答：生令諸行散懷，甚於老與無常。若生不生諸行來現在者，則老無常不能散懷；以生生諸行來現在，故老令衰微、無常能懷。如人在牢固之處有三怨家，一人於牢固之處挽出之，二人共斷其命。若一人不挽出，則二人無由得斷其命；彼亦爾。問：相與所相何異？答：能相是所相過患，如病是人身過患。經論多但明生住滅三相。問：生次於住、住次於滅，住滅中間立其異相者，生住中間何不立長相耶？答：數師云非無此相。何以知然？生漸向住必由長相。然說四相，為明過患令物生厭。長是人之所欣，情既欣長，翻復增惑於物無益，故沒而不說。問：住亦是人之所貴，既貴於住便增物惑，不應說住相也。答：住隣於異，有引異之能，亦為物所厭也。問：生亦是人所貴不？答：生是八苦名，故物不貴。問：無常與死何異？答：《婆沙》云「命根斷一剎那，此亦是死，亦是無常。餘五陰散壞，此是無常非死。」又解：眾生數散壞名死，非眾生數散壞名無常。問：為前法變故為異、為前法滅言異？若滅故言異，異與滅相何別？若變異故名異，與外道變乳作酪何異？答：諸行勢盛故云生、勢衰故言異。外道計乳變作酪、薪變作灰，不說勢衰故名異。問：一切時常有老時，何不一切時常有頭白？答：頭白是色法，此是果報滓，後時方顯，如酒滓酒盡方顯，故不一切時現。問：頭白是色，老是何相？答：非色非心也。問：有為法體是生故生、為與生合故生？答：體是生，但要由生相顯發。如闇中雖有瓶，要須燈顯發，不說燈生。彼亦如是。又解：與生相合故生。問：此品何故云觀相門，不云觀三相門？答：此品非但破三相，通破為無為一切法相，是故但標觀相門。問：觀相門與《中論》觀三相何異？答：二義不同。一者就品名有通別，《中論》稱破三相，其名則別；今直稱觀相，其名則通。所以直稱觀相者，明今品為明無相門，明無一切相故名無相。又一切取相心不生，故名無一切相也。二者《中論》廣破三相有為、略破無為；此品略破有為、廣破無為，互顯也。問：廣破何等無為？答：破二種無為。一破三相是無為，有二門，如下列之。二破無為法體，有四門，亦如後說。凡論無為者，不出相與體，破此二種，一切無為義窮。
此門亦三：第一長行發起、第二偈本正明門體、三最後長行總結齊法。初如文。就偈本為二：第一總破相、第二別破相。總中又二：初偈總明為無為二法體俱無相、第二偈別明有為法無相。初偈上半明為無為法體俱無相、下半明相無故法體亦無。問：此偈為正破法體、正破相耶？答：此偈文雖體相俱破，而正明破相。所以然者，上三門已破法體故也。次長行但釋有為法無相。所以不釋無為法無相者，品末別廣破無為法，是故今文竟第十一偈但破有為家相。
This section also has three parts: first, the opening prose; second, the verses that directly explain the nature of this approach; and third, a concluding prose that summarizes the teachings. The first part is as described. The verses can be divided into two sections: first, a general refutation of characteristics; second, a specific refutation of characteristics. Within the general refutation, there are two parts: the first verse broadly explains that both conditioned and unconditioned things are inherently without characteristics; the second verse specifically explains that conditioned things have no characteristics. In the first verse, the first half clarifies that the essence of both conditioned and unconditioned things is without characteristics, and the second half explains that because characteristics are absent, the essence of things is also absent. Question: Does this verse directly refute the essence of things or directly refute characteristics? Answer: Although the text of this verse refutes both essence and characteristics, its primary purpose is to refute characteristics. Why? Because the previous three sections have already refuted the essence of things. The following prose only explains that conditioned things have no characteristics. The reason it does not explain that unconditioned things have no characteristics is that later, at the end of the chapter, there is a specific and extensive refutation of unconditioned things. Therefore, this text, up through the eleventh verse, only refutes the characteristics of conditioned things.
就初長行為三：一總標有為不以相成；「問曰」下，第二問有為相；「答曰」下，第三列有為相。凡出四事：初一雙，眾生類非眾生類；次一雙，重眾生類非眾生類。所以明四法相者，一欲以體相顯標相、二欲以別相顯通相。
The initial explanation is divided into three parts: first, a general outline that conditioned things are not defined by their characteristics; second, under the question, the characteristics of conditioned things are discussed; third, under the answer, the list of conditioned characteristics is presented. Altogether, four aspects are covered: the first pair concerns sentient beings versus non-sentient beings; the next pair again addresses sentient beings versus non-sentient beings. The reason for explaining these four characteristics is twofold: first, to use specific attributes to clarify the general definition; second, to use individual attributes to illuminate the universal definition.
「如是生住滅」下，此生起第二偈。亦三：一總開兩關定之。若直立三相，即二關定一；若破二部義，即二關定二。「問曰」下，第二偏立相是有為。所以偏立有為者，婆沙評家正用三相是有為法。此既要義，故偏立也。又諸部多立相是有為，故偏立也。亦可略舉一耳。「答曰」下，第三正破。
Thus, under "arising, abiding, and ceasing," this second verse arises. It also has three parts: first, it broadly opens with two criteria for determination. If it directly establishes the three characteristics, then the two criteria determine one; if it refutes the meaning of the two parts, then the two criteria determine two. Under "Question:" the second part specifically establishes that characteristics are conditioned phenomena. The reason it specifically establishes this is that the Vaibhāṣika commentators use the three characteristics as conditioned dharmas. Since this is essential, it is specifically established. Also, many schools establish characteristics as conditioned phenomena, so it is specifically established. It can also be said to be a brief example of one. Under "Answer:" the third part is the actual refutation.
就偈為二：上半牒有為、破有為；下半牒無為、破無為，此則是牒二部而破二部。薩婆多立有為，而隨無窮之過；毘婆闍婆提立無為，而有非相之失。又破有為，通破數論等一切諸部；破無為，別破毘婆闍婆提部。二關破通別兩執也。又此二門亦得但破一家，初正破有為，恐迴宗提無為義，故次破無為。無為亦爾，正破闍婆提無為，恐其從轍執有為義，故破有為。便二部進退無路、庶情靡託，故具開二關破之。又外人但立三相，論主開為無為二門破之，則為無為是能破門、三相是所破也。又為無為通破大小乘內道外道一切諸相，故《百論》中外道亦立三相，是知今文遍破一切也。破全同《中論》，如彼釋之。古來釋窮無窮，莊嚴舊義云：生滅之法窮於剎那，剎那即生滅無初中後分。第二靈味法師：剎那有初中後分，而非無窮。第三開善云：既有三分，分復有分，如是無窮。第四釋云：現在止有生住，以當滅故說滅。此四並是成論師所說也。數人云：一剎那有初中後三分，猶如一馬其頭已入門內、身正跨於門、其尾猶在門外，故一剎那有三分。此是申有窮義也。數人此義，一剎那時節極長。今此文具破窮無窮義。
長行為二：初釋偈本、次例破諸法。初又二：前釋上半；「若生是無為」下，釋下半。凡有二難。初難云：若生是無為，云何與有為作相？此是非相破。「離生住滅誰能知是生」者，若生是無為，即生體無生住滅相。相體既無，誰能知法從相而生？此語法生也。又釋：生相若離三相，即體不可分別。何以知此是生耶？此就相破。文正爾。「復次」下者，上縱離生住滅有此生，無能知者。今明若生無有生住滅，則無此生也。所以然者，有為是有，可得分別為三相。若是無為則無三體之異，故不可分別有生住滅。「生住滅空故」下，自以來釋初偈有為法無相，故無有為。今類破諸法，釋無為無相，故無無為也。
「問曰」下，第二別破三相。又開二別：初破展轉家義、次破不展轉義。所以破此二者，此二攝一切生盡，則無生理現。又初是上座、後是僧祇，此二是十八部本，亦為五百部根，破本末傾也。又初是《毘曇》、次是《成實》。又初是內、次是外。又初是法說、次譬說。又初別破生、次寄譬通破明暗解惑也。問。何故前破展轉、後破不展轉？答：展轉得救上二難，不展轉不得救，故前破。又是諸部之初，故初破。又是盛行天竺，故初破之。又正是旃延本立，五百羅漢所許用義。又其人立法體外有非色非心三相是實有法，不信三相是假名，故自不信諸法無生。是病中最重，故偏破之。又立三相是不相應法，非佛口說。何以知之？羅什答遠法師問云：「不相應行是旃延等說，非佛所說。」既其橫造，故偏破之。問：《涅槃經》親明生不自生，賴生故生。云何云非佛說耶？答：《涅槃》直言大小相生，不云別有非色非心法，則知非佛所說。前問、次答。就問中為二：一牒論主難；「今當說」下，生起偈本，通論主難。
偈上半立小生大，正明三相是有為；下半明大生小通無窮難也。問：其義明九法相扶共起，何故但云大小，除自體生八法？答：《婆沙》云「生最有力，如母生子。母於子最有力，雖餘女人相助，不名餘女人生子。」佛陀人云：如書雖用紙筆等，但人用最勝，故名人書。彼亦如是，雖假餘法共起，但生受其名。問：何故一剎那中，大生能生二法、小生但生大生？答：《婆沙》云「此無過。如女人有生一子者、有雙生者。」問：大生能生八法，小生云何但生一法？答：《婆沙》云「如猪犬有生一子者、有生八子者。」問：生與生生宜是非色非心，云何名為生耶？答：法在未來能生彼法來現在，是功用名，故名生也。生生者亦是功用名。復有能所名，一生是能生、一生是所生，能所合目故云生生。大生名能生、小生名隨相者，體實同時，但大生親生法體，義在於前。大生生小生，而方云小生生大生，義論後也。問：法體本無生滅，而假四相生耶？答：法體本有生滅性，但假四相發動之耳。法體是有為，既具四相八相亦是有為，亦各具四相。以九法各具四相，則九法各是法體。法體具四相易知。大生具四相者，大生體有生性，但不能自生，須小生生，故有生相；大住住大生、大異異大生、大滅滅大生，故具四也。大相具四，一小三大；小相四具皆是大相；法體具四亦是大相也。偈文上半立小生生大，通無為難；下半立大生生小，通無窮難。小生生大通無為難者，大生不為小生生，可是無為；今為小生生，故是有為。問：但為小生生，云何有為？答：既為小生生，即為大住住、大異異、大滅滅，則大生具為四相所遷，故是有為也。下半通無窮難者，小復從小，即是無窮；大還生小，故非無窮。問：大還生小，但為大生生耶？答：既為大生生，則為大住住乃至大滅滅，故小具四相也。
「答曰」下，為二：初兩偈就前後破、次一偈就一時破。就前又二：初偈破其小生生大，提外上半即以下半破之。第二偈破其大生生小，提外下半即以上半破之。難意云：大小既其從他生，則不能生他；若能生他，則不從他。唯此二義。若言從他復能生他第三義者，無有此處。所以然者，能生、從生二義相違，故能則不從、從則不能，故無第三義也。
若謂生生生時，此發起第二段一時門破。《中論》具二偈，今但有一偈。偈為二：上半牒外義、下半破之。牒中有二：初句牒小從大生、次句牒小能生大。而稱或者，小生有重生之名，或可能生大生。又是惑者所謂，故稱為或。下半亦有兩義：「生生猶未生」者，提其初句，以小生從大生生，是故自體未生。「何能生本生」，破第二句。既從大生，則未有自體，何能生大生？相生之義必無體須生、有體能生。然今一時，有則俱有、無則俱無。若俱無則有所生而無能生，若俱有則有能生而無所生，亦唯此二義，無有一時之中有能生復有所生。又汝大小生二體若俱起，則失二用。大體既起，何用小生？小體既起，何用大生？故得二體俱有則失二用。若二體俱未起須二用者，猶無二體，用從何生？若言小能生大，大體未起，須小生之。此得一體一用，而義都不成。大體未起，唯生於小，而言小生大耶？又小若生大，必知未有於大。猶未有大，誰生於小？猶無小體，寧有小用？故諸義不成。
「若謂是生生」，第二次破不展轉相生。就文為二：一長行發起、二偈文正破。此發起與《中論》異者，《中論》直分兩家之異，前立展轉相生、次立不展轉。今此論則顯改宗立義，還是前展轉家改宗立。又則《中論》明相與法體論自他，生相能自生、法體由相有，此正是成實者義。此論就相論自他，小生自生、本生從他。二論不同者，欲遍破一切體相自生生他義令盡也。又前二關並破云：小從大生，故不能生大；若生大，不從大生。次偈云：小生若已有體，即不從大生生。若從大生生，即小未有，何能生？是故今云：小不從大而能生大。即是提論主破以為立也。
偈本中為二：一破譬說、二破法說。初為四：第一總破燈不照闇、第二別破初燈不能照闇、第三縱二燈能破應遍破闇、第四偈奪破明照闇義。今是初。上半辨二處無所破闇、下半辨無能照明。此過有甚於前，前但得能失所、得所失能，今則能所俱失故也。
「問曰」下，生第二偈，此救。三論救燈中最為精巧。上難云：二處無闇，外則提破為立。所以無闇者，由初燈力破故無耳。又良由暗滅故有明成，此則無闇有明，云何下半云無能照明耶？答中為二：上半牒而非、下半正破。破意云：汝言初燈破闇令闇無者，不然。初燈竟不到闇，云何破闇？所以不到者，汝義以明暗二法念念不住，前暗既謝、後闇應續，而明緣具足起在中間，故後暗住於未來、前暗久謝過去，都無相到，云何破耶？初偈辨盛明不見細闇，後偈初明不見麁闇。此如斷惑法，上上智慧斷下下惑、下下智慧斷上上惑。
「復次」下，第三偈來者，前明二燈並不到闇破，恐外人云：明闇是隔世法，雖不相見而能懸破。是故今次破之。又論主借不到破到，今提破而立，上半牒、下半破。破意云：若麁細二明不到近，輕重二闇能破，近者亦不到遠，應能遍破一切遠闇；二俱應不破；三應破遠不破近；四有破不破、有到不到。此偈名縱破者，上二門奪其破義，辨一切諸明悉不到闇，悉不闇破。今縱其破義，今一毫之明遍破天下闇也。
第四偈明闇相次稱奪破者，前第三重縱其破義，今辨天下之闇無有破明之理，則天下之明無有破闇之理，故名奪破。亦有四難：一明闇俱不相見，明既破闇、闇亦破明。二俱不破，闇不見明遂不破明，明不見闇亦不破闇。三明不見闇能破闇、闇不見明不破明者，亦應闇不見明能破明、明不見闇不破闇。四有破、不破，即有到、不到。
「如生能」下，自上以來第一破譬說竟，今第二破法說。云「今當更說」者，上破譬即是破法竟，今復破者豈非重破？又上就見闇不見闇門破，今就已未二門更開異門，故云更說。偈開已未二門破其自生。自生是體、生他是用，猶無有體安有用耶？故但破自。問：為自未生、為本已生？若自生，本未有。未有是無，無何由生？若本已有是生，何須更生？《婆沙》亦有此問：為已生生？若已生生，則有轉還過，從未來來現在、現在更往未來。若未生生，則有本無今有過。彼文答二意：約本無事用，即未生生；約本有體性，則已生生。無二過也。將此論望彼二義，還成二難：本無有事，即是本無今有，墮未生生；本已有性，墮已生生。偈及長行文並可解。「是故生住滅」下，第三總結齊法。從品初第二偈至此長行，前釋品初偈明有為法不以相成；今從此文竟品破無為，釋品初偈無為法不相成。又二：第一別以四句破無為法、第二總結。今是初，以有為破無為，有為無故，無為則無。「復次」下，前第一明有為體無，故無為體亦無。今第二明無為相無，故無無為。從初破生。上破云無有為故無無為。外云：正由無有為，則是無為。是故今破無有為則無有相，有何無為耶？
「若謂」下，第三破，從第二破生。有相故是有為，良由無相故是無為。是以論主開有無二門責覓無相不得。若因有相知無相，則有相是無相家相，不名無有相。若以無相知無相，不可知無相，不可知故非是有無為也。
「若謂如眾衣」，第四破，從第三破生。汝以有無二門責無無相者，不然，正不可知故，即是無相法。喻如眾衣有相故可知，一衣無相亦可知。雖無相之可知，而有無相可知。就文有三：初牒、二總非、三正破。初前牒譬說、次牒合譬；「是事不然」，第二總非；「何以故」下，第三正破。破有二：前破法說，明既無有為之相，云何因相而知無相？「又衣喻」下，第二次破譬說。「是故有為法皆空」下，第二總結以辨三空也。
十二門論疏卷中之末