中觀論疏 1.4

1.4

「以中為名者」下，第二釋論名題。但論有廣略二本，略但云「中論」，廣則加以「觀」也。然斯廣略皆有其義。所言略者，謂理教義也。中是所詮之理，論是能詮之教，斯無理不攝、無教不收。問：何由爾耶？答：所詮之中則三種中道，世諦中、真諦中、非真非俗中。能詮之教即論此三中，是以無教不收、無理不攝。所言廣本具三者，中，諸佛菩薩所行之道。觀，謂諸佛菩薩能觀之心。諸佛觀辨於心、宣之於口，秤之為經；菩薩觀辨於心、宣之於口，目之為論。要具斯三，義乃圓足。玄章內已釋之。但中有三：一者對斷常之偏明中，此是對偏中。二者盡偏中，立於中名，欲盡於偏病，故名盡偏中。又一意，亦為偏病盡得有於中也。問：盡偏、對偏及絕待中，此三何異？答：玄意已明，今重略敘。盡偏中者，蓋是洗淨斷常，故強名為中。雖盡於偏而有於中，如經云「眾生起見凡有二種：一斷、二常。」無常無斷乃名中道。對偏中者，此約所詮之理對破偏病，故名為中。絕待中者，凡有二種：一者如《涅槃》云「有小涅槃、有大涅槃。小涅槃者，待苦說樂。大涅槃者，絕此苦樂，乃名大樂。」此之絕待猶是待義。二者此絕待涅槃不可說其苦樂，不知何以美之，強名為樂乃秤大樂，方是絕待樂。中義亦然，須深見此意。問：獨空與絕待中何異？答：人多不體獨空之旨。但依《智度論》文，十八空是對有明空，秤相待空；非空非有無所因待，秤為獨空。今謂蓋是一種方言，尋獨空意不然。以本來畢竟無所有，唯有實相法性，故秤為獨。正宗爾也。《攝大乘》云「真如獨存」，亦同此意。問：何故此獨作空名說耶？答：以畢竟無一切患累有法，故秤為空。《大集》云「不可說故、無相貌故，名為空。」《法華經》云「終歸於空」，義亦如是。

From "What is designated as the middle" onward is the second [section], explaining the title of the treatise. However, the treatise exists in two versions, extensive and abridged: the abridged only says "Madhyamaka-śāstra," while the extensive adds "Contemplation" (Mādhyamika). Yet both this extensive and abridged have their own significance. What is called the abridged refers to the meaning of principle and teaching: "middle" is the principle that is expounded, and "treatise" is the teaching that expounds it; this leaves no principle ungathered and no teaching uncollected. Question: Why is that? Answer: The middle that is expounded consists of the three kinds of middle way: the conventional truth middle, the ultimate truth middle, and the middle that is neither ultimate nor conventional. The teaching that expounds consists precisely of treating these three middles; hence no teaching is uncollected and no principle is ungathered. As for the extensive version possessing all three: "middle" is the path traversed by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas; "contemplation" refers to the mind capable of contemplating belonging to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. When the Buddhas discern it through contemplation in their minds and proclaim it with their mouths, it is designated as a sūtra; when bodhisattvas discern it through contemplation in their minds and proclaim it with their mouths, it is labeled a treatise. Only when all three are present is the meaning complete. This has already been explained within the Introductory Section. However, the middle has three aspects: first, clarifying the middle in opposition to the bias of annihilation and permanence; this is the middle in opposition to bias. Second, the middle that exhausts bias: establishing the name "middle" in order to exhaust the sickness of bias; hence it is named the middle that exhausts bias. There is also another meaning: it is also called the middle because the sickness of bias having been exhausted, the middle is attained. Question: What is the difference among these three: the middle that exhausts bias, the middle in opposition to bias, and the absolute middle? Answer: The profound intention has already been clarified; now I briefly recount it again. The middle that exhausts bias washes away annihilation and permanence, and is therefore expediently forced into the name "middle." Although it exhausts bias, the middle remains, as a sūtra states: "Sentient beings give rise to views of two kinds: first, annihilation; second, permanence." Freedom from permanence and annihilation is called the middle way. The middle in opposition to bias refers to directly refuting the sickness of bias based on the principle that is expounded; hence it is called the middle. The absolute middle is of two kinds: First, as the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "There is lesser nirvāṇa and greater nirvāṇa. Lesser nirvāṇa refers to speaking of bliss in opposition to suffering. Greater nirvāṇa transcends both suffering and bliss, and only then is it called great bliss." This transcendence still retains a relational sense. Second, regarding this absolute nirvāṇa, one cannot speak of its suffering or bliss; not knowing how to praise it, one expediently forces upon it the name "bliss" and calls it great bliss; only this is absolute bliss. The meaning of "middle" is likewise; one must deeply understand this intention. Question: What is the difference between solitary emptiness and the absolute middle? Answer: Many do not comprehend the purport of solitary emptiness. Merely relying on the text of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: the eighteen emptinesses clarify emptiness in opposition to existence, and are called relative emptiness; being neither empty nor existent, dependent on nothing, is called solitary emptiness. I now say: that is merely a dialectical expression, but examining the intention of solitary emptiness, it is not so. Because originally and ultimately there is nothing whatsoever, and there is only the Dharma-nature of true reality, it is called solitary. This is the orthodox interpretation. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says "suchness alone remains," which also shares this meaning. Question: Why is this solitary spoken of under the name of emptiness? Answer: Because it is ultimately free from all afflictions and existing dharmas, it is called empty. The Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra states: "Because it is inexpressible, because it has no characteristics, it is called empty." The Lotus Sūtra says "ultimately returning to emptiness," and the meaning is also like this.