中觀論疏 1.6

1.6

「夫滯惑生於倒見」者，第三敘造論緣起。就文為二：初敘緣起、次明龍樹出世破迷造論。初有二句：一凡迷、二聖失。凡迷者，謂九十六術及起愛之流也。聖失者，執小乘及有所得大乘者也。斯二無失不該。初謂自樹失，次稟教迷。凡迷為二：一起迷因、二迷所得果。迷因二句，在果亦然。夫滯惑者，滯謂滯著，則起愛之流也。惑謂迷惑，起見之流也。生死眾生以在家起愛、出家起見，則《法華》毒虫之與惡鬼，火宅之內唯斯二物；亦生死根本唯愛與見，如《涅槃》說。「生於倒見」者，前明愛見末，此句次尋其根。所以有愛見者，皆由顛倒橫見故生。如《淨名》云「善惡由身，身由於貪，貪由分別虛妄，虛妄分別由於顛倒。」是以顛倒所見為在家出家愛見本也。又前句既明有愛有見，後句亦有倒有見。倒則顛倒也，見謂虛妄分別，故末有其二，在本亦兩。「三界以之而淪溺」者，此第二次明失果也。起愛見二因，感三界淪溺兩果。沒水為溺，土陷為淪。《法華》云「如是種種諸苦眾生沒在其中」，以苦喻大海，故沒在苦之內則溺義也。三界無常、舍之崩倒則陷義也。故起愛見兩因，感無常苦二果。如《法華》云：惡鬼毒虫二因，感舍之崩倒及火起燒宅二果。睿師全同《法華》意及《維摩》之說也。「偏悟起於厭智」者，第二次辨聖失。凡失重故前明、聖失輕故後辨，則重輕次第。又前是外迷、今辨內惑，亦是外重內輕為次第也。就文為二：一正辨失、二得失互相顯釋。初中二句：一辨失因、二明失果。失因有二，失果亦兩，與上相對也。偏悟者，對上凡迷，故聖秤為悟。若望大乘，故秤為偏，所以云偏悟也。《涅槃》云「二乘之人名為曲見」，又云「若以聲聞辟支佛心言無布施，是則名為破戒邪見。」《法華》云「眇目座陋」，眇目者所見不正也，所謂空有二見並皆不正見。王宮實生、雙林實滅，謂所見不正。《智度論》云「二乘之空名為但空」，故空見不正。又二乘無有中道正觀，如《涅槃》說「但見於空，不見不空。」故不行中道、不見佛性，名為偏悟也。起於厭智者，第二句尋悟之根也。二乘所以偏悟者，由厭生死而欣涅槃。如《法華》云「先取其價，然後除糞。」二乘之人畏老病死，故斷貪瞋癡，以求涅槃永滅，故云厭智。「耿介以之而致乖」者，第二次明得果。亦兩句：初敘其迷執、次明得果。耿介者，外典文言不同，眾師釋亦異，然多不體其意旨。今明耿介者，猶志節也，以封執小乘自謂究竟，永不迴小心進求大道，故名耿介。以之致乖者，此第二明得果也。既封執小乘，則與大道相乖。所以然者，道實無二而妄謂言二，故乖無二之道。《智度論》云「阿羅漢人於佛道迂迴稽留，又復虛言得道。」皆是乖道之義。又道實無生滅，二乘之人謂有煩惱生而滅之得有餘，謂有身智生滅之得無餘。故《法華》云「分別說諸法五眾生滅，則乖無生大道之義。」然二乘既爾，有所得大乘亦然，終言有惑滅解生，猶是小也。「故知大覺在乎曠照」下，此第二得失互相釋也。前舉大得以顯小失。大覺曠照者，此舉大得也。對二乘生滅之小，了一切無生畢竟空秤為曠照。又二乘但得人空、不得法空，名為小智；大乘具得二空、秤為曠照。又二乘亦得二空，但是折法明空，故秤小智；大乘得自性空、自相空，秤為曠照。又二乘但得三界內人法空，名為小智；大乘得三界內外空，名為曠照。又二乘但見於空、不見不空，名為小智；大乘見空及以不空，故秤曠照。所言「隘心」者，書云「一人守隘，萬夫莫進。」蓋是迮小之名也。「照之不曠」下，此廣敘小乘之失也。「夷有無」者，夷之訓平，不能平除有無二見義也。「一道俗」者，《智度論》云「聲聞法中未說生死即是涅槃、眾生則是佛。」故二乘不能一道俗也。道則涅槃，俗則生死。「知之不盡未可以涉中途泯二際」者，行山為踐、履水為涉，蓋是別論耳。今通取行義為涉。二乘之人照理不窮，故不能行於中道也。泯二際者，泯之言滅，謂不能滅於二際也。問：前云一道俗、夷有無，則是泯二際。何故重說？答：睿師深見文意。〈涅槃品〉有二偈：初云「世間與涅槃，無有少分別。涅槃與世間，無有少分別。」此是一道俗之義。次偈云「生死之實際，及與涅槃實際，如是二際者，無豪釐差別。」論既兩文，今還敘此二意也。道俗之不夷、二際之不泯，菩薩之憂也。

"Now, stagnant delusion arises from inverted views": this is the third [section], recounting the circumstances of the treatise's composition. Within the text there are two parts: first, recounting the circumstances; second, clarifying Nāgārjuna's appearance in the world to refute delusion and compose the treatise. In the first part there are two lines: first, the delusions of ordinary beings; second, the failings of sages. The delusions of ordinary beings refer to the ninety-six heterodoxies and the class of those who give rise to craving. The failings of sages refer to those who cling to the Hīnayāna and to those of the Mahāyāna who grasp. These two encompass every failing. The first refers to self-established failings; the second to delusions arising from received teachings. The delusions of ordinary beings are divided into two: first, giving rise to the causes of delusion; second, the fruits attained through delusion. The two lines on the causes of delusion apply likewise to the fruits. As for "stagnant delusion," "stagnant" means attached and stuck, which is the class of those who give rise to craving. "Delusion" means confused and errant, which is the class of those who give rise to views. Sentient beings in samsāra, as householders, give rise to craving, and as renunciants, give rise to views; thus in the Lotus Sūtra they are poisonous insects and evil spirits—within the burning house there are only these two things; furthermore, the roots of samsāra are solely craving and views, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. "Arises from inverted views": the preceding line clarified the branches of craving and views; this line next traces their root. The reason craving and views exist is entirely that they arise due to erroneous, inverted views. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "Good and evil arise from the body; the body arises from covetousness; covetousness arises from false discrimination; false discrimination arises from inversion." Therefore, what is seen through inversion is the root of the craving and views of householders and renunciants. Moreover, since the preceding line clarified that there are craving and views, the subsequent line also has inversion and views. Inversion is just perversion; views mean false discrimination; hence just as there are two in the branches, there are also two in the root. "The three realms thereby sink and drown": this second part clarifies the fruit of failure. Giving rise to the two causes of craving and views brings about the two fruits of sinking and drowning in the three realms. Being submerged in water is drowning; sinking into earth is sinking. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Sentient beings are submerged amid such various sufferings"; using the great ocean as a metaphor for suffering, being submerged within suffering is the meaning of drowning. The three realms are impermanent, and the house collapsing and falling is the meaning of sinking. Hence, giving rise to the two causes of craving and views brings about the two fruits of impermanence and suffering. As the Lotus Sūtra says: the two causes of evil spirits and poisonous insects bring about the two fruits of the house collapsing and fire rising to burn the house. Master [Seng]rui's intention is entirely the same as that of the Lotus Sūtra and the discourse of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. "Partial awakening arises from the wisdom of aversion": this second part distinguishes the failings of sages. Because the failings of ordinary beings are heavy, they are clarified first; because the failings of sages are light, they are distinguished next; this is the sequence of heavy and light. Furthermore, the former was external delusion, while this distinguishes internal confusion; this is also the sequence of external being heavy and internal being light. Within the text there are two parts: first, directly distinguishing the failing; second, mutually elucidating and explaining attainment and failing. In the first part there are two lines: first, distinguishing the cause of the failing; second, clarifying the fruit of the failing. There are two causes of failing, and the fruits of failing are also two, corresponding to the above. As for "partial awakening," in contrast to the delusions of ordinary beings above, the sages are designated as awakened. When viewed toward the Mahāyāna, they are designated as partial; hence it says "partial awakening." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Persons of the two vehicles are called crooked in view"; it also says: "If with the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha one says there is no giving, this is named breaking the precepts and wrong view." The Lotus Sūtra says: "one-eyed, base, and low"; "one-eyed" means that what is seen is not correct; that is, the two views of emptiness and existence are both incorrect views. Taking the palace as true birth and the twin śāla grove as true extinction is called incorrect vision. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The emptiness of the two vehicles is named mere emptiness"; hence their view of emptiness is not correct. Furthermore, the two vehicles do not possess the correct contemplation of the middle way, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "They only see emptiness, but do not see non-emptiness." Therefore, not practicing the middle way and not seeing the Buddha-nature is named "partial awakening." "Arises from the wisdom of aversion": the second line traces the root of their awakening. The reason the two vehicles have partial awakening is that they loathe samsāra and delight in nirvāṇa. As the Lotus Sūtra says: "First they take their wages, and only then remove the dung." Persons of the two vehicles fear old age, sickness, and death, so they cut off greed, anger, and delusion to seek the eternal extinction of nirvāṇa; hence it is called "the wisdom of aversion." "Unyielding rectitude thereby brings about divergence": this second part clarifies the fruit attained. There are also two lines: first, recounting their deluded clinging; second, clarifying the fruit attained. As for "unyielding rectitude" (gengjie), expressions in the non-Buddhist classics vary, and various masters' explanations also differ, yet many do not grasp its essential meaning. What is clarified here as unyielding rectitude is like integrity of resolve: clinging rigidly to the Hīnayāna, they consider themselves ultimate and never turn their narrow minds to advance and seek the great Way; hence it is named unyielding rectitude. "Thereby brings about divergence": this second part clarifies the fruit attained. Since they cling rigidly to the Hīnayāna, they diverge from the great Way. The reason for this is that the Way is truly non-dual, yet they falsely claim it to be two; hence they diverge from the non-dual Way. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Arhats meander and linger with respect to the Buddha Way, and also falsely claim to have attained the Way." These are all the meaning of diverging from the Way. Furthermore, the Way is truly without arising and extinction, yet persons of the two vehicles claim that afflictions arise and by extinguishing them one attains [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and claim that the body and wisdom arise and by extinguishing them one attains [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "Discriminatingly expounding the arising and extinction of all dharmas and the five skandhas diverges from the meaning of the great Way of non-arising." Now, as this is so for the two vehicles, it is likewise so for the Mahāyāna that grasps: in the end, saying there is delusion to be extinguished and understanding to arise is still of the lesser. "Therefore know that the Great Awakening lies in vast illumination" onward: this second part mutually explains attainment and failing. First, it adduces the great attainment to reveal the small failing. "The Great Awakening lies in vast illumination": this adduces the great attainment. In contrast to the littleness of arising and extinction in the two vehicles, comprehending that all is without arising and ultimately empty is designated as vast illumination. Moreover, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna fully attains both emptinesses, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles also attain both emptinesses, but only by analyzing dharmas to clarify emptiness; hence it is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna attains the emptiness of intrinsic nature and the emptiness of specific characteristics, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and dharmas within the three realms, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna attains the emptiness within and outside the three realms, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna sees emptiness and also non-emptiness; hence it is designated as vast illumination. As for "narrow mind," the texts say: "When one man guards the pass, ten thousand cannot advance." This is a name for being constricted and small. From "its illumination is not vast" onward: this elaborates the failings of the Hīnayāna. As for "level existence and non-existence," "level" (yi) glosses as making even; it means being unable to level and eliminate the two views of existence and non-existence. As for "unify the Way and the conventional," the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "In the dharma of the śrāvakas, it has not yet been taught that samsāra is itself nirvāṇa and sentient beings are themselves the Buddha." Therefore the two vehicles cannot unify the Way and the conventional. The Way is nirvāṇa; the conventional is samsāra. As for "whose knowing is not exhaustive cannot tread the middle path or obliterate the two extremes": walking on a mountain is step (jian); treading in water is ford (she); these are specific descriptions. Here the general meaning of walking is taken as treading. Because persons of the two vehicles do not illuminate principle to the utmost, they cannot walk the middle way. "Obliterate the two extremes": "obliterate" means extinguish; it says they cannot extinguish the two extremes. Question: It was stated earlier that unifying the Way and the conventional and leveling existence and non-existence are just obliterating the two extremes. Why say it again? Answer: Master [Seng]rui deeply saw the text's meaning. In the "Chapter on Nirvāṇa" there are two verses. The first says: "Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is not the slightest distinction. Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest distinction." This is the meaning of unifying the Way and the conventional. The next verse says: "The actual limit of samsāra and the actual limit of nirvāṇa—between these two limits, there is not a hair's breadth of difference." Since the treatise has both texts, here both meanings are again recounted. That the Way and the conventional are not leveled, and that the two limits are not obliterated, is the sorrow of the bodhisattva.