中觀論疏 1.19.1

1.19.1

同異門第五。 問：《中論．破因緣品》與《十二門論》觀因緣門此有何異？ 答：破邪因緣、申正因緣，其義大同； 但文有廣略離合為異。 此論因緣一品攝彼三門，亦合彼三門為今一品，如因緣門即是此品「如諸法自性不在於緣中」一偈； 第二觀有果無果門是此品別破四緣初偈； 第三觀緣門是此品結破四緣偈。 問：何故離此一品為彼三門； 答：彼論欲示總別觀義。 總謂因緣門，別謂因門及以緣門。 此論但明總觀，不明於別觀。 而文互有廣略，義可知矣。 第二明論章開合。 尋天竺之與震旦著筆之與口傳敷經講論者，凡有二種：一者直解釋、二者科章門。 如曇影制疏明此論文有四卷、品二十七，領其大宗為破眾生斷常之病、申二諦中道，令因此中道發生正觀也。 二者北立三論師明此論文有四卷，大明三章：初有四偈標論大宗，第二從〈破四緣〉以下竟〈邪見品〉破執顯宗，第三最後一偈推功歸佛。 以初攝初，故四偈標宗在於初品； 以後攝後，故最後一偈推功歸佛在後品也。 師云：「夫適化無方、陶誘非一，考聖心以息病為主、緣教意以開道為宗。 若因開以受悟，即聖教為之開； 由合而受道，則聖教為之合。 如其兩曉，並為甘露。 必也雙迷，俱成毒藥，豈可偏守一途以壅多門者哉。 」具如《法華玄義》以備斯意矣。 但末世鈍根尋其長文不見起盡，講經論者相與開之。 問：經有序正流通，論何故無耶？ 答：大聖三達圓明，鑒二世根性，故立通別兩序； 弟子智猶未逮，故不立之。 又群生不窮、大悲無限，非止益當時，欲遠傳遐代，故有流通； 弟子造論，但當時解益，不敢傳通後世，故不立流通。 二者造論本為通經，故不別立流通也。 問：餘論有正說餘勢，此論何故無耶？ 答：《無畏》廣本故有，今即是略論故無。 二者因事表理，正以略於初後，故名中論。 自攝嶺相承，分二十七品以為三段：初二十五品，破大乘迷失，明大乘觀行； 次有兩品，破小乘迷執，辨小乘觀行； 第三重明大乘觀行，推功歸佛。 所以有此三段者，正道未曾小大，赴大小根緣故說大小兩教。 而佛在世時，眾生福德利根，稟斯兩教並皆迷失。 論主破彼二迷、俱申兩教，是故有三段之文。 又菩薩欲遍學諸道，初已知大道、次須識小，則權實洞明，可得大小雙化也。 問：龍樹為何人雙破大小、雙申兩教？ 答：略為四緣。 一者為學大失大故破大申大。 何以知然？ 《十二門論》云「末世眾生薄福鈍根，雖尋經文不能通了。 我愍此等欲令開悟。 」即此論云「聞大乘法說畢竟空，不知何因緣故空，遂失二諦。 」故知為破學大失大之緣申於大教也。 又三世十方佛赴大緣而說大教，三世十方四依菩薩赴大緣重說大教也。 二者為小緣而申大教。 以封執小乘、障隔大道，故須破小而明於大。 亦有文證，故初品破毘曇四緣，乃至〈燃可燃品〉破薩婆多執法、犢子部計人，即其事也。 又三世十方佛為二緣而說大乘：一為直往菩薩、二為迴小入大之人。 三世十方四依菩薩造論亦為二人，前為學大乘失大故破大申大，即是直往之人； 次為破學小障大，令迴小入大也。 三者為九十六種外道執邪障大乘之正故破邪申正。 論處處有文。 又三世佛就大乘中破外道，令外道悟入大乘。 如《涅槃》六師及十仙之類。 三世四依亦爾，破九十六邪令迴邪入大乘之正。 四者四依為未曾學大小乘內外之緣，如始出家二眾及在家二眾，為此眾生直論大法令其取悟。 以此等緣，雖未曾學大小內外，而無始任運在虛妄失道計有內身外物，今直令觀行求撿無從，便得悟道也。 次申小乘亦為四緣：一為學小乘失小故破小申小，即小乘因緣品是。 二為破外道障於少乘令迴邪入正。 前令迴失從得，今便迴邪入正，即〈邪見品〉是。 三為大乘菩薩申於小教。

The fifth [gate], the gate of similarities and differences. Question: What difference is there between the 'Chapter on Refuting Causes and Conditions' in the Madhyamaka-śāstra and the 'Gate of Contemplating Causes and Conditions' in the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra? Answer: In refuting false causes and conditions and elucidating correct causes and conditions, their meaning is broadly identical; they differ only in that the texts are extensive or brief, separated or combined. This single chapter on causes and conditions in this treatise subsumes those three gates, and also combines those three gates into the present single chapter: the 'Gate of Causes and Conditions' is precisely the single verse in this chapter, 'The intrinsic nature of phenomena does not reside in conditions'; the second, the 'Gate of Contemplating the Existent and Non-existent Fruit', is the initial verse in this chapter that separately refutes the four conditions; the third, the 'Gate of Contemplating Conditions', is the concluding verse in this chapter that refutes the four conditions. Question: Why is this single chapter separated into those three gates? Answer: That treatise intends to show the meaning of general and specific contemplation: the general refers to the gate of causes and conditions; the specific refers to the gate of causes and the gate of conditions. This treatise only clarifies the general contemplation and does not clarify the specific contemplation. As their texts are alternately extensive and brief, the meaning may be understood. Second, clarifying the division and combination of the treatise's sections. Looking at India and China, those who commit to writing and those who transmit orally in expounding sūtras and lecturing on treatises are of two kinds: first, direct commentary; second, dividing into topical sections. For instance, when Tanying composed his commentary, he explained that this treatise has four fascicles and twenty-seven chapters, taking as its overarching theme the refuting of sentient beings' errors of annihilation and permanence, and elucidating the middle way of the two truths, so that through this middle way right contemplation may arise. Second, the northern Sanlun masters explain that this treatise has four fascicles and broadly clarifies three sections: first, four verses mark the overarching theme of the treatise; second, from 'Refuting the Four Conditions' onward through the 'Chapter on Wrong Views', it refutes attachments and reveals the central doctrine; third, the very last verse attributes merit to the Buddha. Because the beginning subsumes the beginning, the four verses marking the overarching theme are in the first chapter; because the end subsumes the end, the final verse attributing merit to the Buddha is in the last chapter. The master said: 'Teaching and transforming [beings] is without fixed manner; training and guiding is not of one kind. Investigating the sagely intent, pacifying errors is primary; examining the purpose of the teachings, opening the way is the core. If awakening is attained through division, the sagely teaching is divided for them; if the way is attained through combination, the sagely teaching is combined for them. If both are understood, both serve as ambrosia; if one is confused about both, both become poison. How could one rigidly cling to a single approach and block the many gates?' This meaning is fully provided, just as in the Fahua xuanyi. But because dull-rooted people of the latter age look through its continuous prose without seeing its beginnings and ends, those who lecture on sūtras and treatises have jointly divided it. Question: Sūtras have prologue, main exposition, and dissemination; why does the treatise have none? Answer: The great sage has the three clarities completely luminous and perceives the capacities of beings across the two times [of past and future]; therefore he establishes both general and specific prologues. The disciples' wisdom has not yet reached this; therefore they do not establish them. Furthermore, sentient beings are boundless and great compassion is infinite; not only intending to benefit the present age, he desires to transmit it afar to distant eras, hence there is dissemination. The disciples compose treatises only for understanding and benefit at that time, not daring to transmit it to future ages; therefore they do not establish dissemination. Second, treatises are originally composed to elucidate the sūtras; therefore they do not separately establish dissemination. Question: Other treatises have a main exposition and an epilogue; why does this treatise have none? Answer: Because the Akutobhayā is the extensive text, it has them; the present text is the abridged treatise, hence it has none. Second, relying on matters to express principle, precisely because it is abridged at the beginning and the end, it is called the Madhyamaka-śāstra. Transmitted down through the lineage from Sheling, the twenty-seven chapters are divided into three sections: the first twenty-five chapters refute the confusions and errors of the Mahāyāna and clarify the Mahāyāna contemplative practice; next are two chapters that refute the confused attachments of the Hīnayāna and distinguish the Hīnayāna contemplative practice; the third again clarifies the Mahāyāna contemplative practice and attributes merit to the Buddha. The reason there are these three sections is that the correct Way has never been small or great; responding to the capacities and conditions of the great and small, the two teachings, great and small, were spoken. But while the Buddha was in the world, sentient beings of merit and sharp faculties, upon receiving these two teachings, all became confused and lost. The treatise master refutes both those confusions and elucidates both teachings; therefore there is a text of three sections. Furthermore, a bodhisattva wishes to train comprehensively in all paths; having first known the great path, next he must recognise the small, and then expedient and real being thoroughly clear, he can bring about the dual transformation of the great and small. Question: For what persons did Nāgārjuna doubly refute both the great and the small, and doubly elucidate both teachings? Answer: Briefly, for four conditions: First, for those who study the great and lose the great, he refutes the great and elucidates the great. How is this known? The Dvādaśamukha-śāstra states: 'Sentient beings of the latter age have meager merit and dull faculties; although they search the sūtra texts, they cannot penetrate and understand them. Pitying them, I desire to bring them to awakening.' In this treatise it says: 'Hearing that the Mahāyāna teachings explain ultimate emptiness, not knowing by what cause and condition it is empty, they subsequently lose the two truths.' Hence we know that for the condition of those who study the great and lose the great, he elucidates the great teaching. Furthermore, the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions respond to great conditions and speak the great teaching; the bodhisattvas of the four reliances of the three times and ten directions respond to great conditions and reiterate the great teaching. Second, for small conditions, he elucidates the great teaching. Because rigidly clinging to the Hīnayāna obstructs the great path, he must refute the small and clarify the great. There is textual proof for this as well: thus the first chapter refutes the four conditions of the Abhidharma, up to the 'Chapter on Fire and Fuel' refuting the Sarvāstivādin attachment to dharmas and the Vātsīputrīya conception of the person; this is that very matter. Furthermore, the Buddhas of the three times and ten directions speak the Mahāyāna for two kinds of conditions: first, for direct-progressing bodhisattvas; second, for those who turn from the small to enter the great. The bodhisattvas of the four reliances of the three times and ten directions who compose treatises also do so for two kinds of persons: earlier, for those who study the Mahāyāna and lose the great, they refute the great and elucidate the great, who are the direct-progressing persons; next, to refute studying the small and obstructing the great, they cause them to turn from the small to enter the great. Third, because the ninety-six kinds of non-Buddhists cling to falsehood and obstruct the correctness of the Mahāyāna, he refutes falsehood and elucidates correctness. There is text everywhere in the treatise. Furthermore, the Buddhas of the three times refute the non-Buddhists within the Mahāyāna, causing the non-Buddhists to awaken and enter the Mahāyāna, such as the six teachers and ten ṛṣis in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The [bodhisattvas of the] four reliances of the three times are also like this: refuting the ninety-six falsehoods, they cause them to turn from falsehood and enter the correctness of the Mahāyāna. Fourth, the four reliances act for conditions who have never studied the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna, internal or external, such as the two newly renounced assemblies and the two lay assemblies; for these sentient beings, they directly discuss the great Dharma to lead them to awakening. For although these conditions have never studied the great, the small, the internal, or the external, from beginningless time they have naturally remained in delusion and lost the Way, conceiving of an internal self and external objects; now, by directly causing them to practice contemplation and seek but find nothing, they then attain awakening to the Way. Next, elucidating the Hīnayāna is also for four conditions: first, for those who study the Hīnayāna and lose the small, he refutes the small and elucidates the small, which is the chapter on Hīnayāna causes and conditions; second, to refute non-Buddhists obstructing the lesser vehicle and cause them to turn from falsehood and enter correctness (previously he caused turning from loss to gain; now he causes turning from falsehood to correctness), which is the 'Chapter on Wrong Views'; third, he elucidates the small teaching for Mahāyāna bodhisattvas.