中觀論疏 1.19.4

1.19.4

如來說生死涅槃因果等法者，為表不生死不涅槃、不因果之正道也。 七者欲明八不言約意包總攝眾教，故標在初。 《智度論》云「四悉檀攝十二部經八萬法藏。 三悉檀可破，第一義悉檀不可破。 雖說三悉檀，為顯第一義悉檀。 」第一義悉檀是八不，今欲明八不攝四悉檀及十二部經八萬法藏，故標在初。 問：何以知八不即是第一義悉檀？ 答：《智度論》引《中論》八不釋第一義悉檀，故知八不是第一義悉檀也。 八者欲明此論是折中之說，前無序分、後略餘勢，命初即標中道。 九者初標中觀論是標章門，次題觀因緣品謂釋章門，明八不是釋因緣。 是故偈云「能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論」也。 問：八不即是因緣，論破因緣應破八不。 答：了因緣即是八不則申而不破，迷因緣即是不八即破而不申，故標八不因緣滅不八戲論。 此即釋〈因緣品〉在論初意。 八不則是因緣，八不既在論初，〈因緣〉即居眾品之首。 十者欲分大小二論不同，故初標八不。 小乘論則是生滅之論，故有生滅觀； 大乘論是無生滅論，故初明無生滅觀。 問：何以知然？ 答：《法華》曰「昔於波羅㮈轉四諦法輪，分別說諸法五眾之生滅。 」小乘四諦、十二因緣皆是生滅，苦集即是相生，故名為生； 滅道為明還滅，故是滅義。 三諦並是有為，故入無餘時悉捨故是斷； 滅諦是無為，稱之為常。 三諦有差別，名之為異； 滅諦無差別，故稱為一。 苦集是生死法，故名為來； 滅道為欲反原，稱之為出，故滅諦名滅止妙出。 四諦既爾，十二因緣亦然。 十二相生為生，十二還滅為滅，滅十二為斷，得無為曰常。 十二三世因果不同，名之為異； 滅十二，無三世因果，名之為一； 七果從五因而來，目之為來； 滅十二，出生死，故稱之為出。 則知為二乘明生滅法，故是生滅觀。 《成實》雖有五聚明義，四諦為其正宗； 毘曇之流亦復如是。 今欲簡異小乘生滅論，明大乘無生滅論，諸法本自不生，故非苦非集； 今亦無滅，故非道。 本自無生，豈有苦集可斷？ 今亦無滅，豈有無為之常？ 下例可知。 問：何以知不生不滅明無四諦耶？ 答：下〈四諦品〉外人難論主：若一切法空，無生亦無滅，如是即無有四聖諦之法。 即良證也。 問：生滅論既名四諦，無生滅論是何諦耶？ 答：即是一實諦。 如《勝鬘》明一實諦是究竟圓極之性，即顯斯論是究竟圓極滿字論也。 此即是一種正意釋八不也。 問：《法華．信解品》云「四大聲聞說一切諸法無生無滅、無大無小。 」小乘亦有八不，與大乘何異？ 答：五義不同。 一者小乘人但得眾生空，故得眾生不生不滅，未得法空，未得法無生滅； 大乘則人法俱無生滅也。 二者設如《成實論》及《智度論》，明小乘人具得二空俱無生滅者，但是拆法明無生，未得本性無生； 大乘則明本性無生也。 三者小乘人滅生滅方得無生滅，此猶是生滅。 有生滅故是生也，滅於生滅故是滅，故小乘無生滅猶是生滅。 故《涅槃》云「二乘之人名有所得」也。 四者小乘人但得三界內人法無生，大乘人具得內外一切法無生。 五者小乘人但見虛妄無生，不見中道佛性無生，故但見空，不見不空、不行中道。 大乘則異之，見虛妄無生，又見中道佛性無生也。 然八不文約義豐、意深理遠，自攝嶺興皇隨經傍論破病顯道釋此八不，變文易體方言甚多，今略撰始終以二條解釋：一者就初牒八不略釋解之、後重牒八不廣料簡也。 就初牒八不，述師三種方言。 第一云：所以牒八不在初者，為欲洗淨一切有所得心。 所以然者，有所得之徒，所行所學無不墮此八計之中。 如小乘人謂有解之可生、有惑之可滅，生死無常為斷、佛果凝然是常，真諦無差別故一、俗諦方有差別不同故異，眾生從無明地流轉故來、反本還原故出。 今二十七品橫破八迷、竪窮五句，以求彼生滅不得，故云不生不滅。

When the Tathāgata spoke of phenomena such as saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, cause, and effect, it was to manifest the right path of neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa, and neither cause nor effect. Seventh, to show that the words of the eight negations are concise yet their meaning is comprehensive, completely encompassing all the teachings, they are set forth at the outset. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'The four siddhāntas encompass the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty thousand treasuries of the Dharma. Three of the siddhāntas can be refuted, but the siddhānta of the highest truth cannot be refuted. Although three siddhāntas are taught, it is to manifest the siddhānta of the highest truth.' The siddhānta of the highest truth is the eight negations; wishing now to show that the eight negations encompass the four siddhāntas as well as the twelve divisions of scriptures and the eighty thousand treasuries of the Dharma, they are therefore set forth at the outset. Question: How is it known that the eight negations are precisely the siddhānta of the highest truth? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa cites the eight negations of the Madhyamaka-śāstra to explain the siddhānta of the highest truth; hence it is known that the eight negations are the siddhānta of the highest truth. Eighth, to show that this treatise is an exposition of impartial judgment, lacking an introductory section before and omitting remaining elaborations behind, it directly sets forth the middle way at the very outset. Ninth, setting forth the title 'Treatise on the Middle Contemplation' at the beginning is presenting the topic, and subsequently titling it 'Chapter on Contemplating Causes and Conditions' is explaining the topic; explaining the eight negations is explaining causes and conditions. Therefore the verse says: 'He who can teach these causes and conditions, skillfully extinguishes all prapañca.' Question: The eight negations are precisely causes and conditions; if the treatise refutes causes and conditions, it should refute the eight negations. Answer: If one understands that causes and conditions are precisely the eight negations, then they are elucidated and not refuted; if one is deluded about causes and conditions so that they are not the eight [negations], then they are refuted and not elucidated. Therefore, setting forth the causes and conditions of the eight negations extinguishes the prapañca of what is not the eight. This explains the purpose of the 'Chapter on Causes and Conditions' being at the beginning of the treatise. The eight negations are precisely causes and conditions; since the eight negations are at the beginning of the treatise, 'Causes and Conditions' therefore stands at the head of all the chapters. Tenth, wishing to distinguish the difference between the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna treatises, the eight negations are set forth at the outset. A Hīnayāna treatise is a treatise on arising and cessation, and therefore possesses a contemplation of arising and cessation; a Mahāyāna treatise is a treatise on non-arising and non-cessation, and therefore initially explains the contemplation of non-arising and non-cessation. Question: How is this known to be so? Answer: The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Formerly in Vārāṇasī, I turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths, discriminatively explaining the arising and cessation of phenomena and the five aggregates.' The Hīnayāna four truths and twelvefold dependent origination are all arising and cessation: suffering and origination are mutual arising, and are therefore termed 'arising'; cessation and the path are meant to clarify returning cessation, and are therefore the meaning of 'cessation'. The three truths are all conditioned, and thus upon entering [the nirvāṇa] without remainder they are entirely abandoned, which is therefore annihilation; the truth of cessation is unconditioned, and is called permanence. The three truths have distinctions, which is termed difference; the truth of cessation has no distinction, and is therefore termed identity. Suffering and origination are phenomena of saṃsāra, and are therefore termed coming; cessation and the path seek to return to the source, and are termed going forth; hence the truth of cessation is called cessation, pacification, excellence, and departure. The four truths being so, the twelvefold dependent origination is also like this: the mutual arising of the twelve is arising; the returning cessation of the twelve is cessation; terminating the twelve is annihilation; attaining the unconditioned is called permanence. The cause and effect across the three times of the twelve are not identical, which is termed difference; terminating the twelve leaves no cause and effect across the three times, which is termed identity; the seven effects coming from the five causes is designated as coming; terminating the twelve goes forth from saṃsāra, and is therefore termed going forth. Thus we know that for the two vehicles it explains the phenomena of arising and cessation, and is therefore a contemplation of arising and cessation. Although the Tattvasiddhi explains doctrines through the five aggregates, the four truths are its main theme; the Abhidharma lineage is likewise so. Now, wishing to distinguish it from the Hīnayāna treatise on arising and cessation and to explain the Mahāyāna treatise on non-arising and non-cessation: all phenomena are fundamentally unarisen, and therefore are neither suffering nor origination; now they are also without cessation, and therefore are not the path. Fundamentally lacking arising, how could there be suffering and origination to be severed? Now also lacking cessation, how could there be the permanence of the unconditioned? The rest can be understood by analogy. Question: How is it known that non-arising and non-cessation clarify the absence of the four truths? Answer: Below, in the 'Chapter on the Four Truths', the opponent challenges the treatise master: 'If all phenomena are empty, lacking arising and also lacking cessation, then there would be no phenomena of the four noble truths.' This is clear proof. Question: Since the treatise on arising and cessation is called the four truths, what truth is the treatise on non-arising and non-cessation? Answer: It is precisely the one real truth. As the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra explains that the one real truth is the nature of ultimate perfection, this manifests that this treatise is a fully complete treatise of the ultimate and perfect word. This, then, is one correct meaning explaining the eight negations. Question: The 'Chapter on Faith and Understanding' of the Lotus Sūtra says: 'The four great śrāvakas said that all phenomena are without arising and without cessation, without greatness and without smallness.' Hīnayāna also has the eight negations; how does it differ from Mahāyāna? Answer: They differ in five meanings. First, persons of the Hīnayāna only attain the emptiness of sentient beings, and thus attain the non-arising and non-cessation of sentient beings, but have not yet attained the emptiness of phenomena, nor have they attained the non-arising and non-cessation of phenomena; the Mahāyāna, on the other hand, holds that both persons and phenomena are without arising and cessation. Second, even if, as in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it is explained that persons of the Hīnayāna fully attain both emptinesses and are without arising and cessation in both, this is merely analyzing phenomena to explain non-arising, without having attained the non-arising of intrinsic nature; Mahāyāna, on the other hand, explains the non-arising of intrinsic nature. Third, persons of the Hīnayāna attain non-arising and non-cessation only by ceasing arising and cessation, which is still arising and cessation: having arising and cessation, it is arising; ceasing arising and cessation, it is cessation; thus the Hīnayāna non-arising and non-cessation is still arising and cessation. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Persons of the two vehicles are termed those with grasping.' Fourth, persons of the Hīnayāna only attain the non-arising of persons and phenomena within the three realms, whereas persons of the Mahāyāna fully attain the non-arising of all internal and external phenomena. Fifth, persons of the Hīnayāna only perceive the non-arising of the delusive, without perceiving the non-arising of the Buddha-nature of the middle way; hence they only perceive emptiness and do not perceive non-emptiness, nor do they practice the middle way. Mahāyāna is different: it perceives the non-arising of the delusive, and also perceives the non-arising of the Buddha-nature of the middle way. However, the text of the eight negations is concise while its meaning is rich; its intent is deep and its principle profound. Ever since [Falang of] Sheling and Xinghuang Temple explained these eight negations in accordance with the sūtras and alongside the treatises to refute errors and manifest the path, the variations in phrasing and regional idioms have been numerous. Now, briefly organizing the beginning and end, they are explained in two points: first, by taking up the eight negations initially to explain them concisely; and second, by taking up the eight negations again to examine and differentiate them extensively. Regarding initially taking up the eight negations, we recount the master's three types of expressions. The first states: The reason the eight negations are taken up at the beginning is to cleanse all minds of grasping. Why so? Because among followers of grasping, there is nothing in their practice and study that does not fall into these eight fabrications. For instance, persons of the Hīnayāna claim that there is understanding to be arisen, delusion to be ceased, that the impermanence of saṃsāra is annihilation, that the Buddha-fruit in its unmoving stillness is permanent, that the ultimate truth is identical because it has no distinction, that the conventional truth is different because it possesses distinctions and divergence, that sentient beings come because they wander from the stage of ignorance, and that they go forth because they return back to the source. Now, the twenty-seven chapters horizontally refute the eight delusions and vertically exhaust the five propositions, seeking that arising and cessation of theirs and finding them impossible to obtain; hence it says 'neither arising nor ceasing'.