中觀論疏 1.19.5

1.19.5

生滅既去，不生不滅、亦生滅亦不生滅、非生滅非不生滅五句自崩。 是故論末偈云「一切法空故，世間常等見，何處於何時，誰起是諸見。 」次偈推功歸佛云「瞿曇大聖主，憐愍說是法，悉斷一切見，我今稽首禮。 」故此論一部橫破八迷、竪窮五句，洗顛倒之病令畢竟無遺，即是中實，故云不生不滅乃至不常不斷也。 然非生非不生既是中道，而生而不生即是假名，此假生假不生即是二諦，故以無生滅生滅以為世諦，以生滅無生滅為第一義諦。 然假生不可言生、不可言不生，即是世諦中道。 假不生不可言不生、不可言非不生，名為真諦中道。 此是二諦各論中道。 然世諦生滅是無生滅生滅，第一義無生滅是生滅無生滅。 然無生滅生滅豈是生滅？ 生滅無生滅豈是無生滅？ 故非生滅非無生滅，名二諦合明中道也。 師又一時方言云：所以就八不明三種中道者，凡有三義：一者為顯如來從得道夜至涅槃夜常說中道，中道雖復無窮，略明三種則該羅一切，故就此偈辨於三中，總申佛一切教。 二者此論既稱中論，故就八不明於中道，中道雖多，不出三種，故就此偈辨於三中。 三者為學佛教人作三中不成故墮在偏病，今對彼中義不成，欲成中義，故辨三種中也。 問：云何學佛教人三中不成？ 答：他云實法滅故不常、假名相續故不斷，不常不斷名世諦中道。 今謂不常猶是斷、不斷猶是常，唯見斷常，何中之有？ 又言：因中未有果事故言非有、有得果之理故言非無，非有非無為世諦中道。 考而論之，非有猶是無、非無猶是有，亦無中矣。 又云：真諦四絕故名為中。 今請問之：為有四絕之理為、無此理耶？ 若有四絕之理則名為有，不得稱中； 若無四絕之理則無真諦，亦非中矣。 又真諦定絕，不可不絕，此乃是偏，何謂中道耶？ 又中是無礙，真諦定絕遂不得不絕； 既其有礙，云何名中？ 又真諦四絕，絕除四句，則是無於四句，故名為斷； 有此四絕之理則名為有，故是常見。 故〈成壞品〉云「若有所受法，則墮於斷常，當知所受法，若常若無常。 」彼二諦合明中道者，謂非真非俗名為中道。 是亦不然。 非真猶是俗、非俗猶是真，還是二諦，更無別中。 以此推之，三中不成。 為對此三種中不成，故今明三種中道。 問：云何辨三種中耶？ 答：他有有可有則有生可生，則有生可生則有滅可滅。 有生可生，生不由滅； 有滅可滅，滅不由生。 生不由滅，生非滅生； 滅不由生，滅非生滅。 生非滅生，故生是自生； 滅非生滅，故滅是自滅。 自生則是實生，自滅則是實滅，實生實滅則是二邊，故非中道。 今明無有可有，以空故有，則無生可生，亦無滅可滅。 無生可生，由滅故生； 無滅可滅，由生故滅。 由滅故生，生是滅生； 由生故滅，滅是生滅。 生是滅生，生不自生； 滅是生滅，滅不自滅。 生非自生，但世諦故假說生； 滅非自滅，但世諦故假說滅。 假生不生、假滅不滅，不生不滅名世諦中道。 對世諦生滅明真諦不生滅，以空有為世諦，世諦假生假滅； 有空為真諦，真諦不生不滅。 此不生不滅，非自不生不滅，待世諦假生明真諦假不生、待世諦假滅明真諦假不滅，非不生非不滅為真諦中道。 二諦合明中道者，無生滅生滅為世諦、生滅無生滅為真諦。 無生滅生滅，豈是生滅？ 生滅無生滅，豈是無生滅？ 故非生滅非無生滅名二諦合明中道。 問：後明三中，與前何異？ 答：前明二諦中道，是因緣假名，破自性二諦，故名為中。 第三雙泯二假，稱為體中。 故前語有四重階級：一者求性有無不可得，故云非有非無名為中道。 外人既聞非有非無，即謂無復真俗二諦，便起斷見。 是故次說而有而無以為二諦，接其斷心。 次欲顯而有而無，明其是中道有無，不同性有無義，故次明二諦，用中雙彈兩性。 次欲轉假有無二，明中道不二，故明體中。

Once arising and ceasing are eliminated, the five propositions—neither arising nor ceasing, both arising-and-ceasing and neither arising nor ceasing, and non-arising-and-ceasing nor non-non-arising-and-ceasing—collapse of their own accord. For this reason, the verse at the end of the treatise states: 'Because all dharmas are empty, regarding views such as eternity in the world: where, at what time, and by whom could such views arise?' The subsequent verse attributes the achievement to the Buddha, saying: 'Gautama, the great holy lord, who out of compassion proclaimed this Dharma to completely sever all views: I now bow down my head in reverence to you.' Thus, this entire treatise horizontally refutes the eight deluded views and vertically exhausts the five propositions, washing away the affliction of inversion so that ultimately nothing remains; this is the middle and real, which is why it speaks of neither arising nor ceasing, up to neither permanent nor annihilated. However, non-arising and non-non-arising being the middle way, and arising yet not arising being the provisional designation, this provisional arising and provisional non-arising constitute the two truths; therefore, regarding non-arising-and-ceasing as arising-and-ceasing constitutes conventional truth, while regarding arising-and-ceasing as non-arising-and-ceasing constitutes ultimate truth. Yet provisional arising cannot be said to be arising, nor can it be said to be non-arising; this is the middle way of conventional truth. Provisional non-arising cannot be said to be non-arising, nor can it be said to be non-non-arising; this is called the middle way of ultimate truth. This is the discussion of the middle way separately for each of the two truths. Furthermore, conventional arising and ceasing is non-arising-and-ceasing arising-and-ceasing; ultimate non-arising-and-ceasing is arising-and-ceasing non-arising-and-ceasing. But how could non-arising-and-ceasing arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could arising-and-ceasing non-arising-and-ceasing be non-arising and ceasing? Hence, neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and ceasing is called the middle way that unifies both truths. The Master also gave an oral teaching at one time, stating: The reason three kinds of middle way are explained in terms of the eight negations comprises three points: First, to demonstrate that from the night of achieving the Way until the night of nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata constantly proclaimed the middle way; although the middle way is boundless, briefly explaining the three kinds encompasses everything, and thus identifying the three middles with this verse comprehensively elucidates all the Buddha's teachings. Second, since this treatise is entitled the Madhyamaka-śāstra, it explains the middle way with respect to the eight negations; though the middle way has many aspects, they do not exceed these three kinds, so the three middles are distinguished with respect to this verse. Third, because practitioners who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three middles and thereby fall into one-sided afflictions, in response to their failure to establish the meaning of the middle, and wishing to establish the meaning of the middle, three kinds of middle are distinguished. Question: How is it that those who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three middles? Answer: Others say that because real dharmas cease there is no permanence, and because provisional designations continue in series there is no annihilation; non-permanence and non-annihilation are called the middle way of conventional truth. We now say: non-permanence is still annihilation, and non-annihilation is still permanence; seeing only annihilation and permanence, what middle could there be? Furthermore, they say: because the effect-entity does not yet exist in the cause, it is called non-existence; because there is the principle of obtaining the effect, it is called non-nonexistence; neither existence nor non-existence is the middle way of conventional truth. Examining it carefully, non-existence is still non-existence, and non-nonexistence is still existence; there is no middle here either. Moreover, they say: ultimate truth transcending the four extremes is called the middle. Now I ask them: does this principle of transcending the four extremes exist, or does this principle not exist? If the principle of transcending the four extremes exists, then it is called existence and cannot be called the middle; if the principle of transcending the four extremes does not exist, then there is no ultimate truth, which is also not the middle. Furthermore, if ultimate truth is definitively transcendent and cannot not be transcendent, this is biased; how could it be called the middle way? Again, the middle is unimpeded, yet ultimate truth being definitively transcendent turns out to be unavoidably transcendent; since it possesses obstruction, how can it be called the middle? Furthermore, if ultimate truth transcending the four extremes eliminates the four propositions, it is the non-existence of the four propositions, and hence is called annihilation; having this principle of transcending the four extremes is called existence, and hence is the view of permanence. Therefore, the 'Examination of Becoming and Decay' says: 'If there is any dharma that is apprehended, one falls into annihilation or permanence; you should know that any dharma apprehended is either permanent or impermanent.' As for their middle way that unifies both truths, they claim that neither ultimate nor conventional is called the middle way. This too is incorrect. Non-ultimate is still conventional, and non-conventional is still ultimate; it remains the two truths, without any separate middle. Deducing from this, their three middles fail to be established. To respond to this failure to establish the three kinds of middle, we now elucidate the three kinds of middle way. Question: How are the three kinds of middle distinguished? Answer: Others hold that where there is an existent that can exist, there is an arising that can arise; and where there is an arising that can arise, there is a ceasing that can cease. If there is an arising that can arise, arising does not depend on ceasing; if there is a ceasing that can cease, ceasing does not depend on arising. If arising does not depend on ceasing, arising is not arising from ceasing; if ceasing does not depend on arising, ceasing is not ceasing from arising. Arising not being arising from ceasing, arising is self-arising; ceasing not being ceasing from arising, ceasing is self-ceasing. Self-arising is real arising, and self-ceasing is real ceasing; real arising and real ceasing are the two extremes, and therefore not the middle way. We now explain that there is no existent that can exist; because of emptiness there is existence, so there is no arising that can arise, nor is there ceasing that can cease. There being no arising that can arise, arising depends on ceasing; there being no ceasing that can cease, ceasing depends on arising. Depending on ceasing for arising, arising is arising from ceasing; depending on arising for ceasing, ceasing is ceasing from arising. Arising being arising from ceasing, arising does not arise of itself; ceasing being ceasing from arising, ceasing does not cease of itself. Arising not being self-arising, it is only for the sake of conventional truth that arising is provisionally spoken of; ceasing not being self-ceasing, it is only for the sake of conventional truth that ceasing is provisionally spoken of. Provisional arising does not arise, and provisional ceasing does not cease; neither arising nor ceasing is called the middle way of conventional truth. In contrast to conventional arising and ceasing, ultimate non-arising and ceasing is explained: regarding emptiness as existence constitutes conventional truth, where conventional truth provisionally arises and provisionally ceases; regarding existence as emptiness constitutes ultimate truth, where ultimate truth neither arises nor ceases. This neither arising nor ceasing does not autonomously neither arise nor cease: dependent on conventional provisional arising, ultimate provisional non-arising is explained; dependent on conventional provisional ceasing, ultimate provisional non-ceasing is explained; neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is the middle way of ultimate truth. As for the middle way that unifies both truths: non-arising-and-ceasing arising-and-ceasing is conventional truth, and arising-and-ceasing non-arising-and-ceasing is ultimate truth. How could non-arising-and-ceasing arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could arising-and-ceasing non-arising-and-ceasing be non-arising and ceasing? Therefore, neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and ceasing is called the middle way that unifies both truths. Question: How does this later explanation of the three middles differ from the earlier one? Answer: The earlier explanation of the middle way of the two truths was dependent-origination provisional designation, refuting intrinsic-nature two truths, and hence was called the middle. The third simultaneously eliminates both provisionalities, and is called the middle of the essence. Therefore, the earlier discourse had four successive stages: First, seeking intrinsic existence and non-existence they cannot be found, and therefore it says that neither existence nor non-existence is called the middle way. When outsiders hear 'neither existence nor non-existence', they immediately think that the two truths of ultimate and conventional no longer exist, and thus give rise to the view of annihilation. For this reason, it next speaks of both existing and non-existing as the two truths, in order to rescue their mind of annihilation. Next, wishing to reveal both existing and non-existing, it explains that these are the existence and non-existence of the middle way, different from the meaning of intrinsic existence and non-existence; hence it next explains the two truths, using the middle to refute both intrinsic natures at once. Next, wishing to transform the duality of provisional existence and non-existence to reveal the non-duality of the middle way, it explains the middle of the essence.