中觀論疏 1.25.2

1.25.2

若不辨經是所迷則不得明於能迷，既不得明於能迷則不得辨於能破，便無有論也。 就第一序佛說經意中又二：第一明佛說小乘經意，又第二明佛說大乘經意。 然至道未曾大小，但赴大小兩緣故明大小兩教。 今因此大小以悟非大非小，所以前小後大者，欲示一途次第。 若就三輪，初明大教、次辨於小、後攝小歸大。 今欲示從淺至深，故自小之至大。 問：前釋云初序佛說中經、後明立論意，若爾但應明大乘經，何故辨小乘耶？ 答：有二義。 一者欲舉小對大，如《法華》將欲歎今大先明昔小教，故云「分別說諸法五眾之生滅。 」《大品》見第二轉法輪，以《涅槃》十三卷明今昔二法輪皆舉小對大。 二者此論具申大小，是故雙牒佛說大小也。 就說小中又開為二：一辨邪興、二明說正。 前亦是感，後復亦是名應。 就說邪興為二：初別列八計、後總結過患。 問：眾計非一，何故止列八計？ 答：有五義。 一者雖有九十六種，略說八計； 如部雖有二十，略明五部。 二者此八計是眾計中大，列大則小可知。 三者八計之中前二計人、後六執法，舉法人則總攝一切。 四者前計二天所說、後六計人所說，人天該羅眾異。 五者八計之中，七為有因、一為無因，有因無因具攝收萬執。 問：八謬何故偏列計生？ 答：凡有二義。 一者生為萬化之根，若伐其根則枝條自壞。 二者上列八不則明於藥，今敘八生次陳其病。 若無八生之病則無八不之藥，良以諸法未曾生與無生。 問：若唯破生明無生，即但有破性明空，無本性空也。 答：為破性本不空，故言本性空耳。 窮考法實非空非不空，何破不破？ 又所以明八計生者，以失諸法無生，故橫計八生。 上標八不題其所失，今敘八生正陳其失。 問：下文乃明破八計生、辨十二因緣生，此是破生說生，豈關破生明無生耶？ 答：後說因緣生，凡有三義：一者破外道生，即應為說大乘本性無生。 但為倒情既重，不堪聞說大乘本自無生，故權說小乘因緣生義。 此是以輕倒用奪重倒，以㨝出㨝義也。 二者欲顯外道具有二迷：一迷大乘本自無生、二迷小乘因緣生義。 三者顯外道復有二迷：一迷第一義諦本自無生、二迷世諦因緣假生。 「自在天生」者，此中列計具足三寶。 「有人言」，即僧寶也。 「自在天」，謂佛寶也。 「萬物從自在天生」，作此說之，即是法寶也。 問：三論列彼二天有何異耶？ 答：此中所列是佛所破緣，《百論》所列是提婆所破緣，十二門論所列是佛滅度後小乘人所破緣，是故異也。 又此《中論》所列為明法義，《百論》所列為明人義，《十二門論》所列通為明人法義。 以自在天能造作萬物，即是作者，名為人義； 六道之苦是自在天所作，名為法義。 故《十二門論》破作者門具破人法。 問：云何名從自在天生？ 答：如《十二門論》說：自在天變化造作萬法，萬法若滅還歸彼天。 自在天三品苦行：下品苦行生腹行虫、中品苦行生飛鳥、上品苦行生人天，故生六道故有三種苦行。 此天面有三目、騎白牛、手執白拂。 又言：頭戴日月、手執髑髏，並出他經。 《涅槃》明第五迦羅鳩馱，計自在天生義。 「韋紐天」者，影師云：「前天色界之頂，此天是欲界之極。 」問：自在天三品苦行生六道，今云何生耶？ 答：劫初之時一切皆空，有大水聚，十方風起能令波波相次、風風相持。 水上有一人，千頭、二千手足，化從水生，名曰韋紐天。 此天齊中有一千葉蓮華，中有光如萬日俱照。 有一梵王因此華生，亦放光明如萬日俱照。 梵王作念：「此處何故空無眾生？ 」作是念時，光音天子命盡之者應生此土，有八天子一時化生。 此八天子心念：「我從梵王生。 」梵王亦念：「我生此八天子。 」從八天子生天地人民萬物。 八天子是眾生之父，梵王是八天子之父，韋紐是梵王之父。

If one does not identify the sūtras as that about which [sentient beings] are deluded, then one cannot explain that which is capable of delusion; and since one cannot explain that which is capable of delusion, one cannot identify that which is capable of refuting it, and thus there would be no treatise. Within the first section, prefacing the intention behind the Buddha's preaching of the sūtras, there are again two parts: first, explaining the intention behind the Buddha's preaching of the Hīnayāna sūtras; second, explaining the intention behind the Buddha's preaching of the Mahāyāna sūtras. Yet the ultimate Way has never been great or small; it is only because [the Buddha] responds to the two capacities of great and small that he expounds the two teachings of great and small. Now, by means of these [teachings of] great and small, one awakens to that which is neither great nor small. The reason Hīnayāna comes first and Mahāyāna comes later is to demonstrate a single sequential path. In terms of the three wheels [of the Dharma], he first expounds the great teaching, next sets forth the small, and finally gathers the small into the great. Here, wishing to show [the progression] from shallow to deep, he proceeds from the small to the great. Question: The previous explanation stated that the opening section prefaces the Buddha's preaching of the middle sūtras, and the subsequent section explains the intention behind composing the treatise. If so, he should only explain the Mahāyāna sūtras; why does he set forth the Hīnayāna? Answer: There are two reasons. First, he wishes to present the small in contrast to the great, just as the Lotus Sūtra, when about to praise the present great [teaching], first explains the past small teaching, hence saying: 'Distinguishing and explaining the origination and cessation of the five aggregates of all phenomena.' In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra one sees the second turning of the wheel of the Dharma, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra in thirteen fascicles explains both the present and past turnings of the wheel of the Dharma—both present the small in contrast to the great. Second, this treatise fully elucidates both the great and the small; therefore it mentions both the great and the small preached by the Buddha. Within the preaching of the Hīnayāna, it is again divided into two: first, identifying the arising of heterodoxy; second, explaining the preaching of the correct. The former is also the stimulus; the latter is also called the response. Within the arising of heterodoxy, there are two parts: first, separately listing the eight views; second, summarizing the faults and perils. Question: The various views are not single; why does he only list eight views? Answer: There are five reasons. First, although there are ninety-six kinds, he briefly states eight views; just as although the [Hīnayāna] schools are twenty, he briefly explains five schools. Second, these eight views are the major ones among the various views; by listing the major ones, the minor ones may be known. Third, among the eight views, the first two posit a person, while the latter six grasp at phenomena; by bringing up phenomena and person, everything is subsumed. Fourth, the former posits what was taught by the two gods, while the latter six posit what was taught by humans; humans and gods encompass all the diverse [views]. Fifth, among the eight views, seven are 'with a cause' and one is 'without a cause'; 'with a cause' and 'without a cause' fully subsume all myriads of attachments. Question: Why do the eight errors exclusively list assertions of production? Answer: There are two reasons. First, production is the root of the myriad transformations; if one fells the root, the branches and twigs will collapse of themselves. Second, above, listing the eight negations explained the medicine; here, recounting the eight productions in turn sets forth the illness. If there were no illness of the eight productions, there would be no medicine of the eight negations; in truth, all phenomena have never been produced or unproduced. Question: If he only refutes production to explain non-production, then there is only refuting intrinsic nature to explain emptiness, but no intrinsic emptiness of original nature. Answer: It is in order to refute the idea that nature is originally not empty that one speaks of 'intrinsic emptiness of original nature.' Thoroughly investigating the reality of phenomena, it is neither empty nor non-empty; what is there to refute or not refute? Furthermore, the reason he explains the eight views of production is that, because [people] lose [sight of] the non-production of all phenomena, they arbitrarily posit eight productions. Above, marking the eight negations gave the title to what they had lost; here, recounting the eight productions directly sets forth their error. Question: The passage below refutes the eight views of production and sets forth production through the twelve links of dependent origination; this is refuting production to speak of production—how does it pertain to refuting production to explain non-production? Answer: His subsequent speaking of production through causes and conditions has three meanings. First, when refuting the non-Buddhists' production, one ought to speak to them of the Mahāyāna original nature as unproduced. However, because their inverted sentiments are heavy, they cannot bear to hear the Mahāyāna teaching that [phenomena] are originally unproduced; therefore he expediently speaks of the Hīnayāna doctrine of production through causes and conditions. This is using a lighter inversion to remove a heavier inversion, using a wedge to knock out a wedge. Second, he wishes to show that non-Buddhists possess two delusions: first, they are deluded about the Mahāyāna [teaching] that [phenomena] are originally unproduced; second, they are deluded about the Hīnayāna doctrine of production through causes and conditions. Third, it shows that non-Buddhists also have two delusions: first, they are deluded about the ultimate truth as originally unproduced; second, they are deluded about the conventional truth as provisionally produced through causes and conditions. Regarding 'produced by the Lord Īśvara': here, listing the view fully includes the Three Jewels. 'Some say' is the Saṅgha jewel. 'The Lord Īśvara' refers to the Buddha jewel. 'The myriad things are produced from the Lord Īśvara'—making this statement is the Dharma jewel. Question: What is the difference between the two gods listed in the three treatises? Answer: What is listed here is the condition refuted by the Buddha; what is listed in the Śata-śāstra is the condition refuted by Āryadeva; what is listed in the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra is the condition refuted by Hīnayāna followers after the Buddha's nirvāṇa; therefore they are different. Moreover, what is listed in this Madhyamaka-śāstra is to clarify the doctrine of phenomena; what is listed in the Śata-śāstra is to clarify the doctrine of the person; what is listed in the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra broadly clarifies both the doctrines of the person and phenomena. Because the Lord Īśvara can create the myriad things, he is the agent, which is called the doctrine of the person; the sufferings of the six destinies are created by the Lord Īśvara, which is called the doctrine of phenomena. Therefore, the chapter refuting the agent in the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra completely refutes both person and phenomena. Question: How is it called 'produced from the Lord Īśvara'? Answer: As explained in the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra: the Lord Īśvara transforms and creates all phenomena; when all phenomena cease, they return again to that god. The Lord Īśvara practiced three grades of asceticism: lower-grade asceticism produced belly-crawling insects, middle-grade asceticism produced flying birds, and upper-grade asceticism produced humans and gods; thus, producing the six destinies, there were three kinds of asceticism. This god has three eyes on his face, rides a white ox, and holds a white fly-whisk in his hand. It is also said that he wears the sun and moon on his head and holds a human skull in his hand, both appearing in other sūtras. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra explains the fifth, Kakuda [Kātyāyana], who posited the doctrine of production from the Lord Īśvara. Regarding 'Viṣṇu': Master Tanying said: 'The previous god is the summit of the form realm; this god is the utmost of the desire realm.' Question: The Lord Īśvara practiced three grades of asceticism to produce the six destinies; now how does [Viṣṇu] produce them? Answer: At the beginning of the kalpa, all was empty. There was a great mass of water. Winds arose from the ten directions, causing wave after wave to follow one another and wind after wind to support one another. Upon the water there was a person with a thousand heads and two thousand hands and feet, miraculously born from the water, named the god Viṣṇu. In the navel of this god there was a thousand-petaled lotus flower, radiating light like ten thousand suns shining together. A Brahmā king was born from this flower, also emitting light like ten thousand suns shining together. The Brahmā king thought: 'Why is this place empty and devoid of sentient beings?' When he had this thought, those sons of the Ābhāsvara gods whose lifespans had ended were destined to be born in this land, and eight gods were spontaneously born at once. These eight gods thought in their minds: 'We are born from the Brahmā king.' The Brahmā king also thought: 'I gave birth to these eight gods.' From the eight gods were born heaven, earth, human beings, and the myriad things. The eight gods are the fathers of sentient beings, the Brahmā king is the father of the eight gods, and Viṣṇu is the father of the Brahmā king.