中觀論疏 1.20

1.20

「能說是因緣善滅諸戲論」下，第二明教用。即是辨二智中道。以佛智能說八不中道滅諸戲論，即是教之用也。又初一偈正說八不，此偈明說八不意。所以說八不者，有二種意：一為顯三種中道、二為滅諸戲論。佛說八不既有二意，今標在論初申八不者亦有二意。故《摩耶經》云「龍樹燃正法炬，滅邪見幢。」《楞伽》云「為人說大乘，能破有無見」也。既是佛智能說，故須明於二智。此二智由二諦中道而生，二諦既是中道故二智亦是中道。二智謂方便及以實智，亦具三種中道。實方便不可定言方便、不可定言不方便，謂方便慧中道。方便實不可定言實、不可定言不實，名為實智中道。此是二慧各明中道。實方便則非方便、方便實即非實，非實非方便謂二智合明中道。非實非方便名一正觀、非真非俗名一正境，境智是因緣之義，既稱境智是則非智、既稱智境是則非境，非智非境泯然無際。前雖開境智，竟無所開；後雖合境智，亦未曾合。若遊此玄門則戲論斯寂，故龍樹致敬。問：二智二諦皆是中道，顯正性不？答：亦得也。問：與《涅槃》五性何異也？答：此中明二智與二諦，則二智是果性，以明佛二智故也。二諦是佛所照之境，但有此兩性。此境智皆開發正性，非境非智亦有正性義也。問：何故彼明五性，今明兩性？答：正明二智之能說、二諦之所說，不正明因果，故但有二性。彼經正明因果、開發正性，故明五性義也。若就論主悟二諦發生二智，亦是因因開發正性，故亦得具五性也。師又釋：能說是因緣，開為二雙：上半破邪顯正、下半敬人歎法。能說是因緣者，歎佛智能說三種中道因緣，即顯正也。善滅諸戲論者，第二破邪也，謂能說八不因緣滅不八戲論。不八戲論者，即二乘人是也，令二乘人迴小入大也。又破菩薩有所得生滅心，令菩薩悟入於大。即知說八不因緣破三乘人戲論，令三乘人皆悟入大乘也。又就〈觀法品〉明戲論有二：一者愛論，謂於一切法有取著心；二者見論，於一切法作決定解。又利根者起見論，鈍根人起愛論。又在家人起愛論，出家人起見論。又天魔起愛論，外道起見論。又凡夫起愛論，二乘起見論。今說此八不，滅二種戲論也。師又約漸捨義明五種戲論：一者佛有誡勸二門，諸惡莫作名為誡門、諸善奉行名為勸門。惡有乖理㾈墜、損他感苦，故名戲論；善是符理清昇、利他招樂，故非戲論。二者善有二門，有所得善不動不出名為戲論、無所得善能動能出故非戲論。三者得無得二名為戲論，如云「明與無明愚者謂二，諸有二者無道無果。」若有得無得平等不二者，名不戲論。「智者了達其性無二」，無二之性即是實性。第四明二與不二是二邊，並是戲論；若能非二不二中道，則無戲論。次二不二、非二非不二並是名相，皆是戲論；言亡慮絕則非戲論。第五若有戲論若有不戲論，並是戲論；若無戲論、無不戲論，方是不戲論也。問：何故就戲論不戲論明二智中道？答：戲論破慧眼，是皆不見佛，故名戲論。無戲論者，即是慧眼，故名為中也。

From “Who taught dependent origination, and skillfully extinguished all prapañca” onward is the second [section], explaining the function of the teaching. This specifically discriminates the middle way of the two knowledges. Since the Buddha's knowledge can teach the middle way of the eight negations to extinguish all prapañca, this is precisely the function of the teaching. Furthermore, the first gāthā directly teaches the eight negations; this gāthā clarifies the intent behind teaching the eight negations. Why he taught the eight negations has two meanings: first, to reveal the three kinds of the middle way; second, to extinguish all prapañca. Since the Buddha had two intents in teaching the eight negations, placing them here at the beginning of the treatise to elucidate the eight negations also has two intents. Hence the Māyā-sūtra says: “Nāgārjuna lit the torch of the true Dharma and brought down the banner of wrong views.” The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “He taught the Mahāyāna for people and was able to shatter the views of existence and non-existence.” Since it is the Buddha's knowledge that is able to teach this, one must elucidate the two knowledges. These two knowledges are born from the middle way of the two truths. Since the two truths are the middle way, the two knowledges are likewise the middle way. The two knowledges refer to expedient and real knowledge; they also possess the three kinds of the middle way. Real expedience cannot be definitely called expedient, nor can it be definitely called non-expedient; this is called the middle way of expedient wisdom. Expedient reality cannot be definitely called real, nor can it be definitely called unreal; this is called the middle way of real knowledge. This is each of the two wisdoms individually elucidating the middle way. Real expedience is non-expedience; expedient reality is non-reality; neither real nor expedient is called the two knowledges jointly elucidating the middle way. Neither real nor expedient is called the one correct contemplation; neither ultimate nor conventional is called the one correct object. Object and knowledge have the sense of dependent origination: since it is termed object-knowledge, it is not knowledge; since it is termed knowledge-object, it is not an object; neither knowledge nor object, they merge boundless. Although previously object and knowledge were distinguished, in the end there was nothing distinguished; although subsequently object and knowledge were unified, they were never unified. If one roams this profound gate, then prapañca is stilled; thus Nāgārjuna pays homage. Question: Are both the two knowledges and the two truths the middle way, revealing the correct nature or not? Answer: They may also be considered so. Question: How does this differ from the five natures in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra? Answer: Here the two knowledges and the two truths are explained: the two knowledges are the fruit-nature, because they explain the Buddha's two knowledges. The two truths are the object illuminated by the Buddha; there are only these two natures. These objects and knowledges both disclose the correct nature; neither object nor knowledge also possesses the meaning of the correct nature. Question: Why does that [sūtra] explain five natures, while here two natures are explained? Answer: Here it directly explains the ability of the two knowledges to teach and the content of the two truths that is taught; it does not directly explain cause and effect, hence there are only two natures. That sūtra directly explains cause and effect, disclosing the correct nature, hence it explains the meaning of the five natures. If one takes it that the treatise master awakens to the two truths and gives rise to the two knowledges, this is also the cause-of-cause disclosing the correct nature, hence it may also possess the five natures. The master also explained: “Who taught dependent origination” divides into two pairs: the first half refutes the heterodox and reveals the correct; the second half reveres the person and praises the Dharma. “Who taught dependent origination” praises the Buddha's knowledge as able to teach the dependent origination of the three kinds of the middle way, which is revealing the correct. “And skillfully extinguished all prapañca” is the second, refuting the heterodox, meaning that he could teach the dependent origination of the eight negations to extinguish the prapañca of the non-eight [negations]. The prapañca of the non-eight [negations] refers precisely to the people of the two vehicles; it makes the people of the two vehicles turn from the lesser and enter the greater. Furthermore, it shatters the bodhisattvas' minds that adhere to birth and cessation with grasping, causing the bodhisattvas to awaken and enter the great. Thus we know that teaching the dependent origination of the eight negations shatters the prapañca of the people of the three vehicles, causing the people of the three vehicles all to awaken and enter the Mahāyāna. Furthermore, based on the “Examination of Dharmas” chapter, prapañca is of two kinds: first, affective discourse (tṛṣṇā-prapañca), which means having a mind of clinging to all dharmas; second, dogmatic discourse (dṛṣṭi-prapañca), making definitive interpretations regarding all dharmas. Again, those of sharp faculties give rise to dogmatic discourse, while those of dull faculties give rise to affective discourse. Again, householders give rise to affective discourse, while renunciants give rise to dogmatic discourse. Again, heavenly Māra gives rise to affective discourse, while non-Buddhists give rise to dogmatic discourse. Again, ordinary beings give rise to affective discourse, while the two vehicles give rise to dogmatic discourse. Now, teaching these eight negations extinguishes these two kinds of prapañca. The master also explained five kinds of prapañca in terms of gradual abandonment: First, the Buddha has two gates of admonition and encouragement: not committing any evil is called the gate of admonition, and reverently performing all goods is called the gate of encouragement. Evil goes against principle, causing sinking into states of woe, harming others, and inducing suffering; therefore it is called prapañca. Good accords with principle, leading to clear ascension, benefiting others, and inviting bliss; therefore it is not prapañca. Second, good has two gates: good with grasping does not move and does not emerge, hence it is called prapañca; good without grasping can move and can emerge, hence it is not prapañca. Third, the duality of attainment and non-attainment is called prapañca, as it is said: “Clear comprehension and ignorance—fools consider them two; for all who possess duality, there is neither path nor fruit.” If attainment and non-attainment are equal and non-dual, it is called non-prapañca. “The wise fully realize their nature is non-dual”; the non-dual nature is precisely the true nature. Fourth, duality and non-duality are two extremes, and both are prapañca; if one can achieve the middle way that is neither dual nor non-dual, then there is no prapañca. Next, duality and non-duality, neither dual nor non-dual, are all names and marks, all prapañca; when words cease and thoughts are extinguished, then it is non-prapañca. Fifth, whether there is prapañca or non-prapañca, both are prapañca; when there is neither prapañca nor non-prapañca, only then is it non-prapañca. Question: Why is the middle way of the two knowledges explained in terms of prapañca and non-prapañca? Answer: Prapañca destroys the wisdom eye; through it, none see the Buddha, hence it is called prapañca. Freedom from prapañca is precisely the wisdom eye, hence it is called the middle.