中觀論疏 1.31

1.31

「佛滅度後」下，第二序龍樹作論意。分為四別：第一明時節、第二明鈍根、第三明迷教、第四明作論破迷。解佛滅後不同，《部執論》云：一百一十六年分為兩部。一上坐部，謂佛畢竟涅槃。此小乘執也。二大眾部，謂佛雖般涅槃，而不般涅槃。般之言入、涅槃言滅，此明應身雖滅、法身常存。宋代二師同兩部義。彭城竺僧弼作《丈六即真論》云「如月在高天影現百水，水清則像現、水濁即像隱。緣見有生滅，佛實無去來。」此略同大眾部義也。次彭城嵩法師云：「雙林滅度，此為實說；常樂我淨，乃為權說。故信《大品》而非《涅槃》。」此略同上座部義。後得病，舌爛口中，因改此迷。引懸鏡高堂為喻，像雖去來，鏡無生滅。然境雖起謝，而智體凝然。問：佛為有應法起息應名滅、為無應法起而云滅耶？答：自古爰今凡有三種釋。開善藏師用弼公義，眾生於佛法身上見有生滅，佛實無生滅。故經云「慈善根力令彼見之，五指實無師子。」莊嚴旻法師云：「別有應法起。故以本垂迹為生，息迹歸本秤滅。如經云『金翅鳥王上昇虛空高無量由旬，觀彼水性及見己影。』即其證也。」招提琰法師云：「具有二義。」今明正為異論紛綸，或言實滅、或言不滅，或言有應法起、或言無起，並是諍論，是故龍樹出世破之。諸見若息，然後乃識因緣假名無方大用，非起非不起、非亦起亦不起、非非起非非不起，適緣而用具諸善根。雖具諸義亦不同他說，蓋是起無所起名為不起，不起而起名之為起。不可聞起定為起解，聞不起定作不起解也。問：由佛滅度故眾生起迷。佛若不滅則不起迷，即咎在於佛。答：《智度論》云「佛有三時利益眾生：一為菩薩時、二得佛時、三滅度時。」《華嚴經》云「欲令眾生生歡喜善故，現王宮生。欲令眾生生戀慕善故，示雙林滅。」既云三時利益物，故知緣自起迷，佛無過也。「後五百歲」者，問：釋迦佛法凡有幾年？答：出處不同，今略引六處，從小至多。一者《俱舍論》引經云「釋迦佛法住世千年。所以然者，釋迦過去世為瓦師，值過去釋迦佛。而過去釋迦佛法住世千年，因是發願：『未來作佛亦名釋迦，佛法亦得千年。』」此言千年者，但說正法不論像法。二者《摩耶經》云「正法五百年，像法一千年，合一千五百年。」三者真諦三藏引《毘婆沙》云「七佛法住世久近不同。迦葉佛法住世七日，𤘽那含牟尼佛法住世六十年，𤘽留村馱佛法住世十二年，釋迦牟尼佛精進力故法住世二千年。」問：若住二千年，何故《摩耶經》云一千五百年？答：不相違也。二千年者，此據其本；一千五百，此約其末。佛法本應二千年，為度女人出家損正法五百年，故唯有一千五百年。問：損五百年，為迫失、為不失耶？答：凡有三釋。一云：迫失，即是引《摩耶經》為證。二解云：此五百流入像法。此解無所出。三釋云：尼修八敬，故還復千年。出《十誦律》文。四者《大集經》明六種堅固：初五百年得道堅固，次五百年多聞堅固，次五百年三昧堅固，次五百年塔寺堅固，次五百年鬪諍堅固，次五百年愚癡堅固。此即三千年也，更撿彼經取定。五者《善見毘婆沙》二十二卷云「初千年得阿羅漢具三明，次千年但得羅漢不得三明，次千年得阿那含，次千年得二果，次千年得初果，五千年已後但剃髮著袈裟而已更不得道。」六者外國祇洹精舍銘，出在古《涅槃經》後載之，云「佛正法千年，像法千年，末法萬年。」天竺朝夕眾中恒唱此事云：「佛法若千年已過，佛法欲滅。老死至近，宜須精進。」此即佛法一萬二千年也。後五百歲者，此是五百歲後耳。《智度論》釋〈信毀品〉云「佛滅度後五百歲後有五百部」，則其證也。「像法中」者，初五百為正法，後五百歲即屬像法。問：佛二月十五日般涅槃，四月十五日結集三藏，界內有千人，名上坐部；界外萬餘人，名大眾部。爾時但有二部名字，以執義未異故，至一百十六年分成二部，乃至三百年有二十部。既有諸部異計，云何名正法？答：睿師作《喻疑論》云「前五百年得道者多、不得道者少，無相是非，故名正法。後五百年不得道者多、得道者少，但相是非執競盈路，故名像法。」此釋從人以分像正也。次慧義法師《雜門論》云「前五百年多說無相法、少說有相法，故名正法。後五百年多說有相、少說無相，故名像法。」此從法以分之也。以此釋望即時，講說人多有分別，作有所得學，不專心學無所得觀者，蓋是時節數之然矣。問：龍樹於像法中何時出耶？答：睿師《成實論．序》述羅什語云「馬鳴是三百五十年出，龍樹是五百三十年出。」《摩耶經》云「七百年出。」匡山惠遠法師云「接九百年之運」，則九百年出。具如《玄義》中釋。問：經中何故正法時少、像法時多？答：正法是好時、像法是惡時，眾生薄福，好時則少、惡時即多。問：《法華經》云舍利弗成佛時，何故像正時等耶？答：舍利弗是淨土中成佛，故好時則多，得像與正等。

From "After the Buddha passed into extinction" onward, this second [part] introduces Nāgārjuna's purpose in composing the treatise. It is divided into four distinct [sections]: first, explaining the period of time; second, explaining the dull faculties; third, explaining the delusion regarding the teaching; and fourth, explaining the composition of the treatise to refute delusions.

Explanations of [the time] after the Buddha's extinction differ: the Samayabhedoparacanacakra states that in the one hundred and sixteenth year [the Saṅgha] divided into two schools. The first was the Theravāda, which held that the Buddha completely entered nirvāṇa; this is an attachment of the Hīnayāna. The second was the Mahāsāṃghika, which held that although the Buddha entered parinirvāṇa, he did not enter parinirvāṇa. "Pari" means entering, and "nirvāṇa" means extinction; this explains that although the response body became extinct, the Dharma body exists eternally. In the Song dynasty, two masters agreed with the doctrines of these two schools. Master Zhu Sengbi of Pengcheng composed the Discourse on the Sixteen-Foot [Body] Being the Real, saying: "Just as the moon is high in the sky and its reflection appears in a hundred waters: when the water is clear the reflection appears, and when the water is turbid the reflection is hidden. It is through conditions that one sees arising and ceasing; the Buddha truly has no coming or going." This roughly agrees with the doctrine of the Mahāsāṃghika. Next, Dharma Master Song of Pengcheng said: "The extinction in the Twin Trees was spoken as real; permanence, bliss, selfhood, and purity were spoken as expedients. Therefore, believe the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and reject the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra." This roughly agrees with the doctrine of the Theravāda. Later, he contracted an illness and his tongue rotted in his mouth, whereupon he turned away from this delusion. He cited a mirror suspended in a high hall as an analogy: although reflections come and go, the mirror has no arising or ceasing; thus, although objects arise and perish, the substance of wisdom remains immovable.

Question: Is it that there are response phenomena that arise, and the cessation of responses is termed extinction; or is it that there are no response phenomena that arise, yet it is called extinction? Answer: From antiquity to the present, there are generally three explanations. Master Baozhang of Kaishan adopted Master Bi's doctrine, [holding that] sentient beings see arising and ceasing upon the Buddha's Dharma body, while the Buddha truly has no arising or ceasing. Therefore, the sūtra says: "By the power of roots of kindness and compassion he caused them to see it; in the five fingers there was truly no lion." Dharma Master Min of Zhuangyan said: "There are separate response phenomena that arise. Therefore, manifesting traces based on the fundamental is called arising, and extinguishing traces to return to the fundamental is termed extinction. As the sūtra says: 'The king of garuḍas ascends into the sky countless yojanas high, observes the nature of that water, and sees his own reflection'—this is its proof." Dharma Master Yan of Zhaoti said: "Both meanings are present."

Now we clarify that it was precisely because disparate treatises were confused and entangled—some saying he truly became extinct, some saying he did not become extinct; some saying response phenomena arise, some saying they do not arise—all of which are disputes, that Nāgārjuna appeared in the world to refute them. Once all views have ceased, only then does one recognize the boundless great functioning of causes, conditions, and provisional designations: neither arising nor not arising, neither both arising and not arising, nor neither arising nor not arising; functioning in accordance with conditions, they are endowed with all roots of goodness. Although endowed with all meanings, this is also not like the explanations of others: it is merely that arising has nothing that arises, which is called not arising; and not arising yet arising, which is called arising. One must not hear "arising" and definitely make an understanding of arising, nor hear "not arising" and definitely make an understanding of not arising.

Question: It was due to the Buddha's extinction that sentient beings gave rise to delusions. If the Buddha had not become extinct, they would not have given rise to delusions, so the fault lies with the Buddha! Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The Buddha benefits sentient beings at three times: first, when he is a bodhisattva; second, when he attains Buddhahood; and third, at the time of extinction." The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "Wishing to cause sentient beings to generate the goodness of joy, he manifested birth in the royal palace. Wishing to cause sentient beings to generate the goodness of longing and yearning, he displayed extinction in the Twin Trees." Since it says he benefits beings at three times, we know that the conditions themselves gave rise to delusions, and the Buddha is without fault.

Regarding "in the latter five hundred years": Question: How many years in all does the Dharma of Śākyamuni Buddha last? Answer: The sources differ; now six sources are briefly cited, from fewer to more. First, the Abhidharmakośa cites a sūtra stating: "The Dharma of Śākyamuni remains in the world for one thousand years. Why is this? In a past life, Śākyamuni was a potter and encountered the past Śākyamuni Buddha. Because the past Śākyamuni Buddha's Dharma remained in the world for one thousand years, he made the vow: 'When I become a Buddha in the future, my name shall also be Śākyamuni, and my Buddhadharma shall also last one thousand years.'" When it speaks here of one thousand years, it speaks only of the true Dharma, not taking the semblance Dharma into account. Second, the Sūtra of Māyā states: "The true Dharma lasts five hundred years, and the semblance Dharma lasts one thousand years, totaling one thousand five hundred years." Third, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha cited the Vibhāṣā, saying: "The durations for which the Dharmas of the seven Buddhas remain in the world are not the same. The Dharma of Kāśyapa Buddha remained in the world for seven days; the Dharma of Kanakamuni Buddha remained in the world for sixty years; the Dharma of Krakucchanda Buddha remained in the world for twelve years; and by the power of his vigorous effort, the Dharma of Śākyamuni Buddha remains in the world for two thousand years." Question: If it lasts two thousand years, why does the Sūtra of Māyā say one thousand five hundred years? Answer: They do not contradict each other. The two thousand years is based on its root [allotment]; the one thousand five hundred is based on its branch [development]. The Buddhadharma was originally meant to last two thousand years, but because women were ordained to leave home, five hundred years of the true Dharma were lost, so there are only one thousand five hundred years. Question: Regarding the loss of the five hundred years, is it definitely lost, or is it not lost? Answer: There are three explanations. The first says: it is definitely lost, which cites the Sūtra of Māyā as proof. The second explanation says: these five hundred years flowed into the semblance Dharma; this explanation has no textual source. The third explanation says: because the bhikṣuṇīs cultivate the eight rules of respect, the thousand years was restored; this comes from the text of the Daśabhāṇavāra-vinaya. Fourth, the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra explains six types of firmness: in the first five hundred years, firmness in attaining the Path; in the next five hundred years, firmness in wide learning; in the next five hundred years, firmness in samādhi; in the next five hundred years, firmness in stūpas and monasteries; in the next five hundred years, firmness in conflict and dispute; in the next five hundred years, firmness in foolishness and delusion. This is three thousand years; one should further consult that sūtra to reach a conclusion. Fifth, the Samantapāsādikā, fascicle twenty-two, states: "In the first thousand years, one attains arhatship endowed with the three knowledges; in the next thousand years, one only attains arhatship without attaining the three knowledges; in the next thousand years, one attains the stage of anāgāmin; in the next thousand years, one attains the second fruit; in the next thousand years, one attains the first fruit; after five thousand years, one merely shaves the head and wears the kāṣāya and never again attains the Path." Sixth, the inscription from the Jetavana Monastery in a foreign land, recorded at the end of the ancient Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, states: "The Buddha's true Dharma lasts one thousand years, the semblance Dharma lasts one thousand years, and the degenerate Dharma lasts ten thousand years." In India, morning and evening, the assembly constantly chants this, saying: "If one thousand years of the Buddhadharma have passed, the Buddhadharma is about to be extinguished. Old age and death are extremely near; you ought to be vigorous!" This means the Buddhadharma lasts twelve thousand years.

"The latter five hundred years" means simply after the five hundred years. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa's commentary on the "Chapter on Faith and Slander" says, "After the five hundred years following the Buddha's extinction, there were five hundred sects," which is its proof. Regarding "in the semblance Dharma": the first five hundred years were the true Dharma, and the latter five hundred years belong to the semblance Dharma. Question: The Buddha entered parinirvāṇa on the fifteenth day of the second month, and on the fifteenth day of the fourth month they compiled the Tripiṭaka. Within the boundaries there were a thousand people, called the Theravāda; outside the boundaries there were over ten thousand people, called the Mahāsāṃghika. At that time there were only the names of the two schools, and because their adherence to doctrines had not diverged, only by the one hundred and sixteenth year did they divide into two schools, and up to the three hundredth year there were twenty schools. Since there were different theories among the various schools, how could it be called the true Dharma? Answer: Master Sengrui wrote the Treatise Illustrating Doubts, saying: "In the former five hundred years, those who attained the Path were many and those who did not attain the Path were few; they did not argue right and wrong with one another, hence it is called the true Dharma. In the latter five hundred years, those who did not attain the Path were many and those who attained the Path were few; they only argued right and wrong with one another, and contentious attachments filled the roads, hence it is called the semblance Dharma." This explanation differentiates semblance and true according to persons. Next, Dharma Master Huiyi's Treatise on Miscellaneous Portals says: "In the former five hundred years, they mostly taught unconditioned phenomena and rarely taught conditioned phenomena, hence it is called the true Dharma. In the latter five hundred years, they mostly taught conditioned phenomena and rarely taught unconditioned phenomena, hence it is called the semblance Dharma." This differentiates them according to the teaching. Looking from this explanation at the present time, when those who preach and explain mostly make discriminations, practicing learning that grasps at attainments and not concentrating their minds on practicing the contemplation of non-attainment, this is simply the inevitable consequence of the numbers of time.

Question: At what time during the semblance Dharma did Nāgārjuna appear? Answer: Sengrui's Preface to the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra relates Kumārajīva's words, saying: "Aśvaghoṣa appeared at three hundred and fifty years, and Nāgārjuna appeared at five hundred and thirty years." The Sūtra of Māyā says: "He appeared at seven hundred years." Dharma Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu says: "Meeting the fortune of the nine hundredth year," meaning he appeared at nine hundred years. It is fully explained as in the Profound Meaning.

Question: Why is the period of the true Dharma short and that of the semblance Dharma long in the sūtras? Answer: The true Dharma is an auspicious time, and the semblance Dharma is an evil time. Sentient beings have meager merit, so the auspicious time is short, while the evil time is long. Question: The Lotus Sūtra says that when Śāriputra becomes a Buddha, why are the periods of semblance and true equal? Answer: Śāriputra attains Buddhahood in a pure land; therefore, the auspicious time is long, so that semblance and true are equal.