中觀論疏 1.28

1.28

「先於聲聞法中」下，第二正明說教。前說教意，謂內智察緣即知病識藥，今外吐言教謂應病授藥。問：前云佛欲斷邪見令知佛法，今云何乃言於聲聞法中說十二因緣？答：凡有二意。一者是內外相對，前明諸外道法，今總辨五乘之教悉名佛法，所以聲聞教亦名佛法也。二者前云令知佛法者，此就佛本意，諸佛本意但為大事因緣明於佛道，今為鈍根之流不堪受佛道，故於一佛乘權說小乘教。故前據於本實、今約於末權，不相違也。依此義，即具三輪：令知佛法，即根本法輪；先於聲聞法中說十二因緣，謂枝末法輪；後為說大乘，是攝末歸本教也。以經具三輪，論申於經亦具三輪矣。聲聞有四種：如《法華論》說：一決定聲聞，謂本習小乘，證於小果。二退菩提心聲聞，本發大心，退大取小。三增上慢聲聞，未得小果謂得小果。四應化聲聞，方便示現。總此四種，名為聲聞也。又所以名聲聞法者，此欲明聲聞、菩薩兩藏相對。小乘名聲聞藏，故云聲聞法；大乘名菩薩藏，故名菩薩法。問：小乘有聲聞、緣覺二人，何故偏名聲聞法？大乘中有佛、菩薩，云何獨名菩薩法耶？答：立二藏名者，此是立教名也。夫立教之意正為稟教之人，緣覺不稟教、聲聞稟教，故名聲聞藏；菩薩稟教、佛不稟教，故名菩薩藏。問：《法華經》言為聲聞說四諦，今云何乃說十二因緣？答：經有通教、別教，《法華》明其別教，《涅槃經》云「十二緣河，三聖俱度。」此是通教。此論正辨其正意俱度之義，所以菩薩聲聞同觀十二因緣也。又十二因緣即是四諦，略因緣為四諦、廣四諦為因緣。故十二相生名為苦集，還滅之義名為滅道。問：乃知教為通別。今何故就通不取別？乃知因緣即四諦，何故辨因緣不辨四諦耶？答：夫論設教因病而起。經云「眾生病有三種：一貪欲病，教不淨觀。二瞋恚病，教慈悲觀。三愚癡病，教因緣觀。」今此八計正是愚癡，故說因緣。若說四諦者，此是藥廣而病狹，以四諦遍破三毒故，則藥病不得相秤，是故說十二因緣。問：經云「因緣甚深」，愚人云何能解？答：此非牛羊等癡，乃是世智辨聰邪推僻執計無因邪因，故名癡耳。問：青目自作此釋、為有所承？答：《智度論》釋《般若．無盡品》云「為破世間無因邪因，故說十二因緣。」青目引彼釋此也。問：云何十二因緣治上諸計耶？答：上來諸計凡有五句，今次第治之。以不識因緣故名為謬，若識因緣不名謬也。過去二因生現在五果，現在三因生未來兩果，治無因也。此十二因緣名為正因，即破微塵自在之邪因也。十二相生不斷不常，以因壞故不常、果續故不斷，即破斷常也。若見十二因緣名為正見，故〈四諦品〉云「若見因緣法，是人能見佛。見苦集滅道，則破邪見也。」但有十二不同，無有一我，若有我者應有十三。既無有我亦無我所，故說十二破我我所也。

From "First, within the Śrāvaka-dharma" onward is the second [part], directly explaining the expounding of the teaching. The previous intention of expounding the teaching referred to inner wisdom examining the conditions, thereby knowing the illness and recognising the medicine; now outwardly uttering the verbal teaching refers to prescribing medicine in response to the illness. Question: Previously it was said that the Buddha wished to cut off wrong views to make them know the Buddha-Dharma; why does it now say that within the Śrāvaka-dharma he expounded the twelvefold dependent origination? Answer: There are two points. First, this is internal contrasted with external: the previous [passage] explained the teachings of non-Buddhists, while here it generally explains that the teachings of the five vehicles are all called Buddha-Dharma; therefore the Śrāvaka teaching is also called Buddha-Dharma. Second, as for the previous statement about making them know the Buddha-Dharma, this is in terms of the Buddha's original intent: the original intent of all Buddhas is solely, for the sake of the one great cause, to elucidate the Buddha-Path; but now, because those of dull faculties cannot receive the Buddha-Path, he provisionally expounded the Hīnayāna teaching within the One Buddha Vehicle. Therefore, the former was based on the fundamental real, while the present concerns the secondary expedient; they do not contradict each other. According to this meaning, the three wheels are fully present: making them know the Buddha-Dharma is the root wheel of Dharma; first expounding the twelvefold dependent origination within the Śrāvaka-dharma is the branch-and-leaf wheel of Dharma; later expounding the Mahāyāna for them is the teaching that gathers the branches back to the root. Because the sūtras possess the three wheels, the treatise elucidating the sūtras also possesses the three wheels. There are four kinds of śrāvakas, as expounded in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa: First, resolute śrāvakas, meaning those who originally practiced the Hīnayāna and realised the lesser fruit. Second, śrāvakas who retrogressed from the bodhicitta, who originally generated the great mind, but retrogressed from the Mahāyāna and took up the Hīnayāna. Third, śrāvakas of excessive pride, who, not having attained the lesser fruit, claim to have attained the lesser fruit. Fourth, transformed śrāvakas, who manifest through skillful means. Combining these four kinds, they are called śrāvakas. Furthermore, as for why it is named the Śrāvaka-dharma, this is to clarify the mutual contrast between the two piṭakas of the śrāvakas and the bodhisattvas. The Hīnayāna is named the Śrāvaka-piṭaka, hence it is called the Śrāvaka-dharma; the Mahāyāna is named the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, hence it is called the Bodhisattva-dharma. Question: The Hīnayāna has the two persons, the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha; why is it exclusively named the Śrāvaka-dharma? The Mahāyāna contains the Buddha and bodhisattvas; why is it solely named the Bodhisattva-dharma? Answer: Establishing the names of the two piṭakas is establishing the names of the teachings. Now, the intent of establishing a teaching is precisely for the persons who receive the teaching: the pratyekabuddha does not receive the teaching while the śrāvaka receives the teaching, hence it is called the Śrāvaka-piṭaka; the bodhisattva receives the teaching while the Buddha does not receive the teaching, hence it is called the Bodhisattva-piṭaka. Question: The Lotus Sūtra says that for the śrāvakas he expounded the Four Noble Truths; why does it now say that he expounded the twelvefold dependent origination? Answer: Sūtras have shared teachings and distinct teachings. The Lotus Sūtra explains its distinct teaching, whereas the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "The river of the twelve links of conditionality: the three sages all cross it." This is the shared teaching. This treatise precisely elucidates its primary intent of all crossing it; therefore the bodhisattva and the śrāvaka together contemplate the twelvefold dependent origination. Moreover, the twelvefold dependent origination is simply the Four Noble Truths: condensing dependent origination yields the Four Truths, and expanding the Four Truths yields dependent origination. Therefore, the twelve links generating one another are called suffering and its origination, and the meaning of cessation is called cessation and the path. Question: We now know the teachings are shared and distinct; why does it now follow the shared and not take the distinct? We now know dependent origination is simply the Four Truths; why does it elucidate dependent origination and not elucidate the Four Truths? Answer: In general, setting forth a teaching arises because of the illness. A sūtra says: "The illnesses of sentient beings are of three kinds: first, the illness of greed and desire, for which the contemplation of impurity is taught; second, the illness of anger and hatred, for which the contemplation of loving-kindness and compassion is taught; third, the illness of delusion, for which the contemplation of dependent origination is taught." Now these eight views are precisely delusion, hence dependent origination is expounded. If he had expounded the Four Truths, this would be a case where the medicine is broad while the illness is narrow, for the Four Truths ubiquitously refute the three poisons; then the medicine and the illness would not match each other. Therefore he expounded the twelvefold dependent origination. Question: The sūtras say that dependent origination is extremely profound; how can deluded persons understand it? Answer: This is not the delusion of cattle, sheep, and the like, but rather worldly wisdom and clever eloquence giving rise to erroneous deductions and perverse attachments, positing no-cause or evil causes; hence it is merely called delusion. Question: Did Piṅgala make this explanation himself, or did he inherit it? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in explaining the chapter on the inexhaustible in the Prajñāpāramitā, says: "In order to refute the worldly [views of] no-cause and evil causes, he expounded the twelvefold dependent origination." Piṅgala cited that to explain this. Question: How does the twelvefold dependent origination remedy the above views? Answer: The aforementioned views comprise five clauses; now they are remedied in sequence. Because of not recognising dependent origination it is called an error; if one recognises dependent origination, it is not called an error. The two past causes generate the five present effects, and the three present causes generate the two future effects, which remedies [the view of] no-cause. These twelve links of dependent origination are called the correct cause, which refutes the evil causes of subtle atoms, Īśvara, and the like. The twelve mutually generating links are neither annihilated nor permanent: because the cause is destroyed it is not permanent, and because the effect continues it is not annihilated, which refutes annihilation and permanence. If one sees the twelvefold dependent origination, it is called right view; hence the "Chapter on the Four Truths" says: "If one sees the Dharma of dependent origination, this person can see the Buddha, / and seeing suffering, origination, cessation, and the path, then one refutes wrong views." There are only the twelve differences and there is no single self; if there were a self, there should be thirteen. Since there is no self, there is also no belonging to a self; therefore expounding the twelve refutes the self and what belongs to a self.