[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 1.7 # 中觀論疏 1.7 中觀論疏 1.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.7) 第二破迷作論，又開二別：初明大悲內充、次別明破迷作論。初是慈悲、後明智慧，即菩薩福慧二業。又初是知病識藥、後是應病授藥。又初是悲心、後明悲事。問：何故云有無不夷、二際不泯，但明此兩句也。答：有無是眾見之根、障中道之本，故偏說也。二際不泯，謂破一道清淨也。又前敘能障、後明所障，又前是凡迷、後為聖惑，又前是外迷、後為內惑，言約事終也。菩薩之憂者，既見凡迷六道紛然、聖惑三乘異逕，為此而興無緣大悲，故秤憂也。「是以龍樹」下，第二破迷作論。又開兩別：前破內迷、後破外迷。亦前破聖惑、後破凡迷。問：初段中何故前敘凡迷、後明聖惑，今前破聖惑、後破凡迷？答：有文有義。言其義者，前就起惑次第，故前凡後聖、前重後輕。後約傍正次第，斯論正破於內、傍破於外。亦前正破封執二乘之失，後傍洗九十六術。約文者，在初文後敘聖迷，接聖破聖，故便除聖迷。「折之以中道」者，折之言齊。齊者，生死涅槃不二、眾生與佛平等，則是中道。又將中道之理折二際令齊，故言折之以中道。「使惑趣之徒望玄指而一變」者，惑者迷也，趣者理也。謂迷理之人，即是封執二乘、有所得大乘菩薩。玄指者，即是斯論。藉斯論重玄之言，因改二乘之執、迴有所得菩薩同歸不二，故名為一變。若守二乘不歸一道，封執偏大未悟平等，並是守指忘月，不名一變。今改小入大，迴有得而悟無得，如因指得月，故秤為變。「括之以即化」，第二破於外惑。括者撿括。即化者，如肇公云：「道遠乎哉？觸事即真。聖遠乎哉？體之即神。」〈十二門序〉亦有斯意，故云「悟大覺於夢境，即百化以安歸。」猶是論文明一切諸法即是無生，故云即化。「令玄悟之賓喪諮詢於朝徹」，此寄斥震旦莊周以呵天竺外道，良以此土無別外道，而用老莊以為至極，是以斥之。諮詢者，問善道之辭也。喪之言亡也。朝徹者，郭象云：「遺死生、亡內外，豁然無滯，見機而作，故云朝徹也。」又云：朝者旦也，徹者達也。又云：一旦能達於理，故云朝徹。又云：不崇朝而徹理。崇者言重，猶是一朝而達耳，故云朝徹也。今明既悟斯論，知一切法即是實相無生，須忘問答朝徹之事，故云喪諮詢於朝徹也。既不諮詢於老莊，豈復稟承六師及十八一切智人并九十六術耶？ > Second, refuting delusions to compose the treatise also has two divisions: first, showing that great compassion is inwardly abundant; second, showing specifically the refutation of delusions to compose the treatise. The first is loving-kindness and compassion; the second explains wisdom; these are the two karmas of merit and wisdom of a bodhisattva. Moreover, the first is knowing the disease and discerning the medicine; the second is administering medicine in accordance with the disease. Again, the first is the mind of compassion; the second clarifies the acts of compassion. Question: Why is it that, saying "being and non-being were not leveled, and the two bounds were not obliterated", he explains only these two phrases? Answer: Being and non-being are the root of all views and the basis that obstructs the middle way; hence they are spoken of especially. "The two bounds were not obliterated" refers to ruining the purity of the one path. Furthermore, the former describes what can obstruct, and the latter clarifies what is obstructed; again, the former is the delusion of ordinary beings, and the latter is the confusion of sages; again, the former is outer delusion, and the latter is inner confusion. The words are concise, but their coverage is exhaustive. Regarding "the sorrow of the bodhisattva": having seen ordinary beings deluded, the six destinies in turmoil, and the sages confused, the three vehicles taking divergent paths, he aroused unconditioned great compassion for this reason; thus it is called "sorrow". From "Therefore Nāgārjuna..." onward is the second part, refuting delusions to compose the treatise. This also has two divisions: first, refuting inner delusions; second, refuting outer delusions. It is also first refuting the confusion of sages, and second refuting the delusion of ordinary beings. Question: In the first section, why did he first narrate the delusion of ordinary beings and then clarify the confusion of sages, whereas now he first refutes the confusion of sages and then refutes the delusion of ordinary beings? Answer: There is the text and there is the principle. As for the principle: previously, following the order in which confusions arise, ordinary beings came first and sages came second, the heavy came first and the light came second. Here, following the order of primary and secondary: this treatise primarily refutes the inner and secondarily refutes the outer. It also primarily refutes the errors of clinging to the two vehicles first, and secondarily cleanses the ninety-six heterodox systems later. Regarding the text: in the earlier passage, the confusion of sages was narrated at the end; continuing from the sages, he refutes the sages, and so immediately eliminates the confusion of sages. "Leveled them by means of the middle way": "level" (zhe) means to equalize. Equalizing means that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-dual, and sentient beings and the Buddha are equal—this is the middle way. Furthermore, taking the principle of the middle way, he leveled the two bounds to make them equal; thus it says "leveled them by means of the middle way". "Causing those pursuing confusion to look upon its profound intent and undergo a complete transformation": "confused" means deluded; "pursuing" means the principle. This refers to those who are deluded about the principle, namely those who cling to the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna with attainment. The "profound intent" is precisely this treatise. Relying on the profoundly mysterious words of this treatise, they thereby alter the attachments of the two vehicles and turn back the bodhisattvas with attainment to return together to non-duality; therefore it is called "a complete transformation". If one adheres to the two vehicles without returning to the one path, or clings to a one-sided Mahāyāna without realizing equality, all of these are clutching the pointing finger and forgetting the moon; it cannot be called a complete transformation. Now, turning from the small to enter the great, turning from attainment to realize non-attainment is like obtaining the moon by means of the finger; hence it is called "transformation". "Subsuming them within imminent transformation" is second, refuting outer confusions. "Subsuming" means gathering and examining. "Imminent transformation": as Master Zhao said: "Is the Way far away? Touch things and it is true. Is the Sage far away? Embody it and it is spiritual." The preface to the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra also holds this meaning; hence it says: "Realizing the Great Awakening in the realm of dreams, abiding in the hundred transformations, whither would one return?" This is just like the treatise text clarifying that all dharmas are unarisen; hence it says "imminent transformation". "Causing guests of profound awakening to lose their inquiries in morning clarity": this relies on criticizing Zhuangzi of China to reproach the outer paths of India. This is truly because in this land there were no other outer paths, and Laozi and Zhuangzi were taken as the ultimate; therefore he reproached them. "Inquiries" refers to words that ask about the good way. "Lose" means to discard. As for "morning clarity", Guo Xiang said: "Abandoning death and life, discarding the inner and the outer, open and unobstructed, acting upon seeing the catalyst; hence it is called morning clarity." He also said: "Morning" means dawn; "clarity" means thorough penetration. He also said: penetrating to the principle in a single morning; hence it is called "morning clarity". He also said: penetrating the principle before the morning has passed. "Before the morning has passed" means not taking a long time, still just penetrating in a single morning; hence it is called morning clarity. Now it is clarified that once one awakens to this treatise, knowing that all dharmas are true reality and unarisen, one must forget the matters of question and answer and morning clarity; hence it says "to lose their inquiries in morning clarity". If one no longer inquires of Laozi and Zhuangzi, how could one still accept and follow the six masters, the eighteen omniscient beings, and the ninety-six heterodox systems? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.6) - [Next: 1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.8) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.1.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.1.7) · Pramāṇa