中觀論疏 1.25.1

1.25.1

「問曰何故造斯論」下，第二明造論意。 龍樹造論唯有偈本，自下長行皆是青目所釋。 就文為二：一問、二答。 問有二種：一因上生、二者孤起。 因上生者，上云能說是因緣善滅諸戲論，既歎佛能開中道善滅諸戲論，若爾佛已顯中道、已滅戲論，汝今何故更復造論？ 若更復造論，則佛未顯中道、未滅戲論。 第二孤起問者，凡有八意：一者佛經既無量，眾生尋讀猶尚不盡，汝今何故更復造論。 若更造者，將非屏於佛經開顯汝論？ 二者佛言巧智深，眾生尋讀猶不能解。 汝言不及佛言、智淺於佛智，尋讀汝論豈得悟耶？ 若尋讀汝論遂得解者，則言智勝佛。 三者如《成實論．立論品》云「問曰：不應造論論佛語也。 所以然者，一切智人意趣難解。 若佛自論可名為論，若佛不論餘人不能論。 」龍樹既未齊佛，何能論佛意耶？ 四者諸佛明見未來根性，在世說經，預杜其迷、逆開其解，斯事已足。 汝今何故更復造論耶？ 五者馬鳴等已造論竟，汝今何故更復造論耶？ 六者汝已造《大無畏論》廣明中實、廣滅戲論，《中觀》已在其內。 汝今何故更復造耶？ 七者凡造論者多有過失，顯他之短、明己之長。 假使內無是非，外觀多過失，故不應造論。 八者龍樹出世如佛重興，外人不敢遮於造論，但未解造論所由，故請陳其意，是故問耳。 「答曰」下，第二論文既長，今懸答之。 答第一問云：佛經已開中實、已滅戲論，此但化益當時。 末世眾生亦更起戲論、覆障中道，是故我今更須造論。 答第二問云：正為佛經文言浩博難可尋究，是故我今略撮方等中心、諸佛要觀名為八不，則眾生悟之為易。 故下文云「諸法雖無量，略說八事，則為總破一切法空。 」又佛在世時眾生利根，聞佛略說則悟； 佛滅度後眾生鈍根，待論主廣敷乃解。 如佛直說無生，龍樹以種種門釋於無生也。 又佛隨機散說，論主隨義束說，為是因緣應須造論。 答第三問云：佛雖智深言巧，但末代根緣屬在於我。 是故經云「若緣不屬佛，佛不能度。 」今緣屬四依，故四依度之，如阿難度須跋陀事經云。 答第四問：龍樹雖未齊佛，少見佛意，隨力解釋，是故無過。 故《成實論》云「解者造論，不解者止。 」答第五問：如經云「所應度者皆已度竟，餘未度者為作得度因緣。 」則未來度之正在四依，非佛所化，故須造論也。 答第六問：馬鳴造論自為馬鳴之緣、龍樹造論自為龍樹之緣，不應責也。 答第七問云：《無畏》之廣自為廣緣、此論之略自為略緣，不應難也。 答第八問云：今造論者不為破他顯己，但以慈悲所以造論，如有目人見無目者入深水火境，若不悟之便非菩薩。 今造論破邪顯正意亦如是。 答第九問云：如來在世說經有益，我今造論亦有深利益。 答前孤起及因上生，故有九問答也。 就答開為二章：第一序佛出世說經意。 「佛滅度後」下，第二序龍樹出世作論意也。 問：外人但問造論、不問說經，今但應答其造論，何故答說經耶？ 答：解有五義。 第一明雖復答其說經，即是解造論所由。 以經是所論、論是能論，若無所論則無能論，能論所論具足方名為論。 二者先序佛說經意即是佛說中經，後明造論意即是明論中義，故秤中論。 此是論中經，故名中論。 三者論主引佛說經以並外人問，汝若遮我不聽造論，亦應遮佛不聽說經。 所以然者，有佛必有菩薩，有經必有論，如白日潛光、明月接曜，如來戢影、菩薩舒暉，是故不應遮造論也。 四者前序說經意，是經生於論； 後序造論意，即是論生於經。 經生於論者，龍樹稟於佛經發生二智，有二智方得作論。 故經云「從佛口生，從正法化生」，即其事也。 云何論生於經？ 佛滅度後邪義障經亦令不復現，今破病申經即是論生經也。 五者初序說經意，明眾生所迷； 後序造論意，即辨破能迷。

From "Question: For what reason was this treatise composed?" onward is the second [section], clarifying the intention behind composing the treatise. When Nāgārjuna composed the treatise, there was only the verse text; the prose below is entirely the commentary by Piṅgala. In terms of the text, there are two parts: first, the question; second, the answer. The question is of two kinds: first, arising from what precedes; second, arising independently. As for arising from what precedes: above it says, "He who is able to teach this dependent origination / Excellently puts an end to all prapañca." Since it praises the Buddha as being able to reveal the middle way and excellently put an end to all prapañca, if so, the Buddha had already revealed the middle way and already put an end to prapañca—why now should you compose a treatise again? If you compose a treatise again, then the Buddha had not yet revealed the middle way and not yet put an end to prapañca. As for the second, the independently arising question, it has eight points: First, since the Buddhist sūtras are already immeasurable, and sentient beings still cannot exhaust them by reading and investigating them, why now do you compose a treatise again? If you compose yet another, will this not set aside the Buddhist sūtras and display your own treatise? Second, the Buddha's words are skillful and his wisdom profound, yet sentient beings still cannot understand them by reading and investigating them. Your words do not equal the Buddha's words, and your wisdom is shallower than the Buddha's wisdom; how could they attain awakening by reading and investigating your treatise? If they were to attain understanding by reading and investigating your treatise, then your words and wisdom would surpass the Buddha's. Third, as stated in the "Establishing Treatises Chapter" of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*: "Question: One should not compose a treatise to discuss the Buddha's words. Why is this so? The intent of an omniscient person is difficult to understand. If the Buddha himself discusses it, it can be called a treatise; if the Buddha does not discuss it, other people cannot discuss it." Since Nāgārjuna has not yet equaled the Buddha, how can he discuss the Buddha's intent? Fourth, all Buddhas clearly see the future capacities of beings, and while in the world preaching the sūtras, they preemptively block their confusion and proactively open up their understanding; this matter was already sufficient. Why now do you compose a treatise again? Fifth, Aśvaghoṣa and others have already composed treatises; why now do you compose a treatise again? Sixth, you have already composed the *Akutobhayā-śāstra*, extensively explaining the middle and real and extensively putting an end to prapañca, and the *Mādhyamika* is already contained within it. Why now do you compose it again? Seventh, whoever composes a treatise generally has many faults, exposing others' shortcomings and displaying their own strengths. Even if internally there is no right and wrong, to external observation there are many faults; therefore one should not compose a treatise. Eighth, Nāgārjuna's appearing in the world was like the Buddha flourishing once again; outsiders would not dare obstruct the composing of a treatise, but having not understood the reason for composing the treatise, they therefore request that he state his intention; hence this question. From "Answer:" onward, the second part, since the text of the treatise is long, now answers them in advance. Answering the first question: The Buddhist sūtras already revealed the middle and real and already put an end to prapañca, but this only benefited and converted those at that time. Sentient beings of the latter age also give rise to prapañca again and obscure the middle way; therefore I now must compose a treatise again. Answering the second question: It is precisely because the texts and words of the Buddhist sūtras are vast and extensive, difficult to investigate thoroughly, that I now briefly summarize the core of the vaipulya [sūtras] and the essential contemplations of all Buddhas, calling them the eight negations, so that it will be easy for sentient beings to awaken to them. Hence the text below says: "Although dharmas are immeasurable, briefly speaking of eight things thoroughly refutes everything as empty of all dharmas." Furthermore, when the Buddha was in the world, sentient beings were of sharp faculties; hearing the Buddha speak briefly, they awakened. After the Buddha's extinction, sentient beings were of dull faculties, depending on the treatise master to explain extensively before they understand. For example, the Buddha directly spoke of non-arising, while Nāgārjuna explains non-arising through various approaches. Furthermore, the Buddha spoke in a dispersed manner according to capacities, while the treatise master speaks in a summarized manner according to the meaning; due to these causes and conditions, it is necessary to compose a treatise. Answering the third question: Although the Buddha's wisdom was profound and his words skillful, the capacities and conditions of the latter age belong to me. Therefore a sūtra says: "If conditions do not belong to the Buddha, the Buddha cannot deliver them." Now the conditions belong to the four reliances, so the four reliances deliver them, as the sūtra recounts the matter of Ānanda delivering Subhadra. Answering the fourth question: Although Nāgārjuna has not yet equaled the Buddha, he has seen a little of the Buddha's intent and explains according to his ability; therefore there is no fault. Thus the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says: "Those who understand compose treatises; those who do not understand cease." Answering the fifth question: As a sūtra says: "Those who should be delivered have all already been delivered; for the remaining who have not yet been delivered, causes and conditions for attaining deliverance have been created." Thus, delivering in the future precisely resides with the four reliances and is not what the Buddha converts; therefore it is necessary to compose a treatise. Answering the sixth question: Aśvaghoṣa composing a treatise was for Aśvaghoṣa's own conditions; Nāgārjuna composing a treatise is for Nāgārjuna's own conditions; one should not reproach this. Answering the seventh question: The breadth of the *Akutobhayā* was for conditions suited to breadth; the brevity of this treatise is for conditions suited to brevity; one should not challenge this. Answering the eighth question: The present composition of the treatise is not to refute others and display oneself, but out of compassion one composes the treatise; just as a sighted person seeing a blind person entering a realm of deep water and fire, if he does not awaken him, he is not a bodhisattva. The intention of composing this treatise to refute the heterodox and reveal the correct is also like this. Answering the ninth question: When the Tathāgata was in the world, preaching sūtras was beneficial; my composing the treatise now also has profound benefit. Answering the preceding independently arising [questions] and the one arising from what precedes, there are thus nine questions and answers. In terms of the answer, it is opened into two sections: first, introducing the intention of the Buddha's appearing in the world to preach the sūtras; from "After the Buddha's extinction" onward, second, introducing the intention of Nāgārjuna's appearing in the world to make the treatise. Question: The outsider only asked about composing the treatise and did not ask about preaching the sūtras; now one should only answer regarding composing the treatise, so why answer regarding preaching the sūtras? Answer: The explanation has five meanings. First, it clarifies that although he answers regarding preaching the sūtras, this is precisely explaining the reason for composing the treatise. Since the sūtra is what is commented on (the object of treatise) and the treatise is what comments (the agent of treatise), if there were no object of treatise, there would be no agent of treatise; only when what comments and what is commented on are complete is it called a treatise. Second, first introducing the intention of the Buddha preaching the sūtras is precisely the Buddha preaching the middle sūtra; later clarifying the intention of composing the treatise is precisely clarifying the treatise's middle meaning; therefore it is called the *Madhyamaka-śāstra*. This is commenting on the middle sūtra, hence it is called the *Madhyamaka-śāstra*. Third, the treatise master adduces the Buddha preaching the sūtras to counter the outsider's question: If you obstruct me and do not permit me to compose a treatise, you should also obstruct the Buddha and not permit him to preach sūtras. Why is this so? Where there is a Buddha, there must be a bodhisattva; where there is a sūtra, there must be a treatise. Just as when the white sun conceals its light, the bright moon takes up the radiance; when the Tathāgata withdraws his shadow, the bodhisattva spreads his brilliance. Therefore, one should not obstruct the composition of a treatise. Fourth, earlier introducing the intention of preaching the sūtras is the sūtra giving rise to the treatise; later introducing the intention of composing the treatise is the treatise giving rise to the sūtra. As for the sūtra giving rise to the treatise: Nāgārjuna received from the Buddha's sūtras and gave rise to the two wisdoms; having the two wisdoms, he could then make the treatise. Therefore a sūtra says: "Born from the Buddha's mouth, transformed and born from the True Dharma"—this is precisely that matter. How does the treatise give rise to the sūtra? After the Buddha's extinction, heterodox doctrines obstructed the sūtras and caused them not to appear again; now refuting errors and elucidating the sūtras is precisely the treatise giving rise to the sūtra. Fifth, first introducing the intention of preaching the sūtras clarifies that which sentient beings are confused about; later introducing the intention of composing the treatise distinguishes refuting that which can confuse.