中觀論疏 1.25.3

1.25.3

韋紐手執輪戟，有大威勢，故云萬物從其生也。 問：《智度論》列三天，二天如上列，第三名鳩摩羅伽天。 鳩摩羅伽者，此言童子天，以其是初禪梵王，顏如童子故以為名。 亦那羅延天，那羅延此云生本，以其是眾生之本故也。 《中》、《百》二論何故但列二天？ 答：凡有二義。 一者外道明有三天者，即是彼家三身：自在天為本，如內法身佛； 應為韋紐，如內應身佛； 韋紐齊中化為梵王，如內化身佛也。 《智度論》具明三身義，所以列三天也。 彼家復有真應兩身義，故《中》、《百》二論但列二天。 二者列二天攝得三天，以韋紐齊中即有梵王，故不須列第三天也。 「從和合生」者，凡有四義：一者其人推求諸法不應從二天生。 所以然者，若萬物從二天生者，二天復從誰生耶？ 故現見四大和合有外物生、父母和合生於眾生。 所以言此執為謬者，以其但見緣因、不識正因。 正因謂遠由業行，蓋是見近不見遠，是故為謬。 二者諸法從眾因緣生，無有從一因生義。 上計從二天生者，是從一因而生，故不同上說也。 三者諸法從平等因生，平等因者謂因能生果、因復從因，故名平等。 自在天等但能生他、不從他生，故非平等因。 四者提婆論中明有一外道計：未有天地本有一男一女，從此男女生一切人物，故云和合生也。 「從時生」，智度論明時有二種：一者時體是常，但為萬法作於了因、不作生因，是故此時名不變因。 不變因者，謂常相因也。 二者謂別有時體，能生萬物，故為萬物作生殺因。 如偈云「時來眾生熟，時去即摧朽。 時轉如車輪，是故時為因。 」開善謂：三相是時，能生萬法。 與此大同。 「從世性生」者，即是冥初外道。 以神通力見八萬劫事，自爾之前冥然不知，謂此一冥為諸法始，故云冥初。 一切世間以為本性，名為世性。 成論師辨無明流來，地論者執乖真起妄，與此相似。 「從變生」者，變生者變有四種：一神通變，如變石為玉。 二性自變，如少變為老。 三遇緣變，如水遇寒則變為氷。 四者外道謂別有變法能變生萬法，如阿毘曇種類以類於眾生。 若執虎變成人、鹿變成佛，亦猶此執之例。 然將外道難，數論亦難。 何故六道眾生別有種類而萬法無耶？ 又若眾生別有種類萬法無者，亦眾生別有生法萬物應無生。 又眾生自有變異法，不須變法變之，亦應自有生，不須別有生法生之義。 若答云：四相中已有異相，相即是變法者，與外道別有變法變於一切，有何異耶？ 「從自然生」者，外道推求諸法因義不成，故謂萬法自然而生。 但解自然有二家：若如莊周所論，明有之已生則不須生，無之未生復何能生？ 今言生者，自然爾耳。 蓋是不知其所以然，謂之自然，此明自然有因、自然無因。 二者外道謂諸法無因而生，名為自然。 故經云「䓶頭自尖、飛鳥異色，誰之所作？ 自然爾耳。 」成實者謂：無明元品之惑託空而生，皆無因之類也。 「微塵生」者，外道計至妙之色圓而且常，聚則成身、散則歸本，天人六道莫不由之生。 數論師云：以細色成麁色，而隣虛最小。 與此執略同。 羅什師云：「佛不說有極微，若說極微即墮邊見。 但說一切色若麁若細皆是無常苦空無我令人得道，以諸論義師自說有極微色耳。 」

Viṣṇu holds a disc and a trident in his hands and possesses great power; therefore, it is said that all things are born from him. Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa lists three devas, the two devas as listed above, and the third named Kumāra-deva. As for 'Kumāra', here it is translated as the Youthful Deva (Tongzi Tian), because he is the Brahmā king of the first dhyāna and his countenance is like a youth, hence he is so named. He is also Nārāyaṇa-deva; 'Nārāyaṇa' is translated here as 'origin of birth', because he is the origin of sentient beings. Why do the two treatises, the Madhyamaka-śāstra and the Śata-śāstra, list only two devas? Answer: There are two meanings. First, the non-Buddhists explain that there are three devas, which correspond to the three bodies of their school: Īśvara is the root, like the internal dharmakāya Buddha; his response is Viṣṇu, like the internal sambhogakāya/nirmāṇakāya Buddha; and from Viṣṇu's navel Brahmā is transformed, like the internal nirmāṇakāya Buddha. Because the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa fully explains the meaning of the three bodies, it lists three devas. Their school also has the doctrine of the two bodies, the real and the responsive; hence the Madhyamaka-śāstra and Śata-śāstra list only two devas. Second, listing two devas encompasses all three devas, because Brahmā is already present within Viṣṇu's navel, so there is no need to list the third deva. Regarding '[born] from combination', there are four meanings: First, that person investigates and concludes that phenomena should not be born from two devas. Why so? If all things are born from two devas, from whom are the two devas in turn born? Therefore, one presently sees that external things are born from the combination of the four great elements, and sentient beings are born from the combination of parents. The reason why this grasp is said to be an error is that it sees only the auxiliary cause (pratyaya-hetu) and does not recognize the direct cause. The direct cause refers to having its distant origin in karmic activity; this is merely seeing what is near and not seeing what is distant, hence it is an error. Second, phenomena are born from many causes and conditions; there is no sense of being born from a single cause. The previous assertion of being born from the two devas was being born from a single cause, hence it is not the same as the previous explanation. Third, phenomena are born from equal causes. An 'equal cause' means that a cause can produce an effect, and the cause in turn derives from a cause; hence it is called equal. Īśvara and the others can only produce others and are not produced from others; therefore, they are not equal causes. Fourth, in Āryadeva's treatise it is explained that a non-Buddhist posited: before heaven and earth existed, there were originally one man and one woman, and from this man and woman all people and things were born; hence it is called 'born from combination'. Regarding 'born from time', the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains that there are two kinds of time: First, the substance of time is permanent, and it only serves as an illuminating cause (jñāpaka-hetu) for the myriad phenomena, not as a productive cause (kāraka-hetu); therefore this time is called an unchanging cause. An unchanging cause refers to an invariable, concomitant cause. Second, it is held that there is a separate substance of time that can generate all things, and thus it acts as the cause of generation and destruction for all things. As the verse says: 'When time arrives, sentient beings mature; / When time departs, they decay and rot. / Time turns like a chariot wheel; / Therefore, time is the cause.' Kaishan held that the three characteristics are time and can generate all phenomena. This is largely the same. Regarding 'born from primal nature' (prakṛti), this refers to the non-Buddhists of the primordial darkness. By supernormal powers they see the events of eighty thousand kalpas, but before that they are in obscurity and know nothing; they regard this single darkness as the beginning of phenomena, hence it is called 'primordial darkness'. Regarding it as the fundamental nature of the entire world, it is called 'world-nature' (prakṛti). The Tattvasiddhi masters' analysis of the flowing forth of ignorance, and the Dilun masters' assertion of departing from reality to produce delusion, are similar to this. Regarding 'born from transformation', transformation has four kinds: 1. Transformation through supernormal powers, like turning stone into jade. 2. Self-transformation of nature, like the young turning into the old. 3. Transformation upon encountering conditions, like water turning into ice when encountering cold. 4. Non-Buddhists hold that there is a distinct dharma of transformation that can transform and generate all phenomena, just as the Abhidharma posits 'category' (nikāya-sabhāga) to categorize sentient beings. Holding that a tiger transforms into a human, or a deer transforms into a Buddha, also belongs to this kind of assertion. However, if one uses this to challenge the non-Buddhists, the Sarvāstivādins are also challenged: Why do sentient beings of the six destinies have a distinct 'category' while the myriad phenomena do not? Furthermore, if sentient beings have a distinct 'category' and the myriad phenomena do not, then sentient beings also having a distinct dharma of origination would imply that the myriad phenomena should lack origination. Furthermore, sentient beings inherently possess the dharma of alteration and do not need a dharma of transformation to transform them; likewise, they should inherently possess origination and do not need a distinct dharma of origination to originate them. If they reply: 'Among the four characteristics there is already the characteristic of alteration (sthity-anyathātva), and this characteristic is precisely the dharma of transformation', how is this different from the non-Buddhists positing a distinct dharma of transformation that transforms all things? Regarding 'born from spontaneity' (svabhāva/yadṛcchā), non-Buddhists investigate and find that the meaning of a cause for phenomena cannot be established, so they hold that all phenomena are born spontaneously. But there are two traditions interpreting spontaneity: If it is as discussed by Zhuang Zhou, he explains that what exists has already been born, so it does not need to be born; what does not exist has not yet been born, so how could it be born? Now when we speak of 'birth', it is simply spontaneously so. It is merely that not knowing why it is so is called 'spontaneity' (ziran); this explains that spontaneity has a cause or that spontaneity is causeless. Second, non-Buddhists hold that phenomena are born without a cause, which is called spontaneity. Therefore a sūtra says: 'The tip of the water-chestnut is naturally sharp; flying birds have different colors. Who made them? They are simply naturally so.' The Tattvasiddhi masters hold that ignorance, the primary defilement, is born relying on emptiness; these all belong to the category of causelessness. Regarding 'born from subtle atoms' (paramāṇu), non-Buddhists hold that the most subtle matter is round and permanent; when aggregated it forms bodies, and when dispersed it returns to the origin; devas, humans, and the six destinies all arise from them without exception. The Sarvāstivāda masters say: coarse matter is formed from fine matter, and the atom adjacent to empty space (paramāṇu) is the smallest. This is largely the same as that assertion. Master Kumārajīva said: 'The Buddha did not teach that there are ultimate atoms (paramāṇu). If one speaks of ultimate atoms, one falls into extreme views. He only taught that all matter, whether coarse or fine, is impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self, enabling people to attain the path; it is only the masters of the treatises who themselves spoke of ultimate atomic matter.'