中觀論疏 10.11

10.11

「眾因緣生法」下，第四引經證。顯前有所得定性有過，顯論主無所得空無失。兩偈為二：初偈明因緣生法離斷常過；第二偈攝法，則顯外定性有為失。釋此一偈多種形勢，今略述數條：一者就破病漸捨釋之。「因緣所生法」者，破自性故，且言因緣，此一轉意也。「我說即是空」，惑人復謂乃無性有而有因緣，故今明因緣生是無耳，何時因緣生是有？此二轉也。「亦為是假名」，惑者復云既是空，即作無解。故今明只空是假。何故爾？成論師明真諦空非假，故今更反擲，只空即是假，即彈空心。彼即謂：若爾，是二諦相即，前有即空，今空即有，只是空有二諦義。故今明此即是中道，何時是二諦？借中以彈二，二去不二亦捨，即了悟也。次直依因緣正義釋者，所言因緣所生法者，經說因緣或離或合，皆作因名，猶如佛性；皆作緣名，猶如四緣；亦因亦緣，如十二因緣。如無明望行體未有，而為無明所辨，親義為因；行起望無明，我非都無，但假借汝起，故無明是緣。所以無明亦因亦緣。今明隨緣離合，義無定也。所生法者，數人六因四緣所生是實法，成論三因四緣所生也。此即是空者，以所生是能所，能所不自，所不自則不所，是故所空也。「亦為是假名」者，空所不自所故不所，所空不自空故不空，不知何以目之，故云假名說空所。假名說所空，此空所所空，皆是無名相中為引導眾生故假名說耳。問：何故假名說空所所空耶？答：欲為令因空所悟不所，由所空悟不空，故言「亦是中道義」。以空所不所、所空不空，故即中道。次就中假義釋者，因緣所生法，此牒世諦也。我說即是空，明第一義諦也。亦為是假名，釋上二諦並皆是假。既云眾緣所生法我說即是空，此是有宛然而空，故空不自空，名為假空。空宛然而有，有不自有，名為假有。亦是中道義者，說空有假名為表中道，明假有不住有故有非有，假空不住空故空非空，非空非有即是中道。次依長行就三是義釋者，因緣所生法，大小乘人同知諸法從因緣生。我說即是空下，第二明因緣是三是義。小乘有所得人聞因緣所生法，唯知是有，不識因緣是於三是。今示因緣生法是於三是：一因緣生法是畢竟空。所以然者，若有自性則不從因緣，既從因緣生即是無自性，所以是空。亦為是假名者，示第二是，明因緣生法亦是假名。所以秤假者，前明因緣生法我說是空，然因緣既本不有，今亦不空，非空非有，不知何以目之，故假名說有亦假名說空。亦是中道義者，示第三是，明因緣生法亦是中道。因緣生法無有自性故空，所以非有；既其非有亦復非空，非有非空故名中道。然小乘之人不知三是，即有三失，謂失空、失假、失中。若執諸法自性者，亦不識因緣，故有四失。第二偈上半攝法。恐外人不信因緣，謂眾緣中有性，是故明攝法也。下半結三是。既未曾有一法不從因緣生，亦未曾有一法不是空、不是假、不是中，今略舉一耳。問：論主引何處經偈？答：是《華首經》佛自說之，故稱「我說即是空」也。

From "Dharmas arisen from conditions" onward, fourthly, citing a sūtra as proof. This shows that the aforementioned determined nature of those who have attainments has faults, and shows that the non-attainment emptiness of the author of the treatise has no flaws. The two verses comprise two [parts]: the first verse explains that dharmas arisen from conditions are free from the faults of annihilation and permanence; the second verse subsumes dharmas, showing that the outsider's determined existence is a flaw. There are many ways of explaining this one verse; now several points will be briefly stated: First, explaining it in terms of refuting errors and gradual abandonment. "Dharmas that are produced by causes and conditions" is for the sake of refuting intrinsic nature, temporarily speaking of causes and conditions; this is the first turn of meaning. "I say are just emptiness": confused people again think that while there is no intrinsic existence, there are causes and conditions; therefore it is now explained that what is produced by causes and conditions is simply non-existent—when was what is produced by causes and conditions ever existent? This is the second turn. "And are also provisional designations": the confused again say that since it is empty, they take it to mean non-existence. Therefore it is now explained that emptiness itself is provisional. Why is this so? The Tattvasiddhi masters explain that the emptiness of the ultimate truth is not provisional; therefore now, turning it back on them, emptiness itself is just provisional, which critiques the mind that clings to emptiness. They then say: If so, this is the mutual identity of the two truths—the former existence is emptiness, and the present emptiness is existence; it is merely the meaning of the two truths of emptiness and existence. Therefore it is now explained that this is just the middle way; when was it ever the two truths? Borrowing the middle to critique the two, when the two are gone, the non-dual is also abandoned, and one instantly awakens. Next, directly explaining according to the correct meaning of causes and conditions: as for the phrase "dharmas produced by causes and conditions", the sūtras explain causes and conditions as sometimes separate and sometimes combined; they are all termed "cause", just like Buddha-nature; they are all termed "condition", just like the four conditions; they are also both cause and condition, as in the twelve links of dependent origination. For instance, looking from ignorance toward volitional formations, its substance is not yet existent, yet it is delineated by ignorance: by virtue of direct proximity it is the cause; when volitional formations arise and look toward ignorance, [they say,] "I am not entirely non-existent, but merely arise relying on you," so ignorance is the condition. Therefore ignorance is both cause and condition. Now it is explained that in accordance with the separation and combination of conditions, the meaning is not fixed. As for "dharmas produced": for the Sarvāstivādins, what is produced by the six causes and four conditions is a real dharma; for the Tattvasiddhi, they are produced by three causes and four conditions. "This is just emptiness": because what is produced involves the producer and the produced, and the producer and produced do not exist in themselves; if the produced does not exist in itself, then it is not produced; therefore the produced is empty. "And are also provisional designations": because the empty produced is not produced of itself, it is not produced; because the produced emptiness is not empty of itself, it is not empty; not knowing what to call it, it is called a provisional designation to speak of the empty produced. A provisional designation speaks of the produced emptiness; this empty produced and produced emptiness are both merely spoken of by provisional designations in the midst of the signless to guide sentient beings. Question: Why speak of the empty produced and the produced emptiness by provisional designations? Answer: It is intended to cause one, through the empty produced, to realize the non-produced, and through the produced emptiness, to realize the non-empty; hence it is said, "It is also the meaning of the middle way." Because the empty produced is not produced and the produced emptiness is not empty, it is just the middle way. Next, explaining in terms of the meaning of the middle and provisional: "Dharmas that are produced by causes and conditions"—this restates the conventional truth. "I say are just emptiness"—this explains the ultimate truth. "And are also provisional designations"—this explains that the above two truths are both provisional. Since it says "dharmas produced by conditions, I say are just emptiness," this is existence being clearly empty, so emptiness is not empty of itself, and is called provisional emptiness. Emptiness is clearly existent, so existence is not existent of itself, and is called provisional existence. "It is also the meaning of the middle way": speaking of emptiness and existence as provisional designations is to express the middle way, explaining that provisional existence does not abide in existence, so existence is not existent, and provisional emptiness does not abide in emptiness, so emptiness is not empty; being neither empty nor existent is just the middle way. Next, explaining according to the prose in terms of the meaning of the "three identities": "Dharmas produced by causes and conditions"—people of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna alike know that dharmas are produced from causes and conditions. From "I say are just emptiness" onward, secondly, it explains that causes and conditions have the meaning of the "three identities". People of the Hīnayāna who have attainments, upon hearing of dharmas produced by causes and conditions, only know that they are existent, and do not recognize that causes and conditions are characterized by the three identities. Now it is shown that dharmas arisen from causes and conditions are characterized by the three identities: first, dharmas arisen from causes and conditions are ultimate emptiness. Why is this? If they had intrinsic nature, they would not depend on causes and conditions; since they are produced from causes and conditions, they lack intrinsic nature, and therefore are empty. "And are also provisional designations" shows the second identity, explaining that dharmas arisen from causes and conditions are also provisional designations. Why are they called provisional? Previously it was explained that dharmas arisen from causes and conditions, I say, are empty; yet since causes and conditions are fundamentally non-existent, they are now also not empty; being neither empty nor existent, not knowing what to call them, they are provisionally designated as existent and also provisionally designated as empty. "It is also the meaning of the middle way" shows the third identity, explaining that dharmas arisen from causes and conditions are also the middle way. Dharmas arisen from causes and conditions have no intrinsic nature and are therefore empty, so they are not existent; since they are not existent, they are also not empty; being neither existent nor empty, it is called the middle way. However, people of the Hīnayāna do not know the three identities, and thus have three flaws, namely lacking emptiness, lacking the provisional, and lacking the middle. If one clings to an intrinsic nature in dharmas, one also does not recognize causes and conditions, and thus has four flaws. The first half of the second verse subsumes dharmas. Fearing that the outsider would not believe in causes and conditions and would claim that there is intrinsic nature within conditions, it therefore explains the subsumption of dharmas. The second half concludes the three identities. Since there has never been a single dharma that is not produced from causes and conditions, there has also never been a single dharma that is not empty, not provisional, and not the middle; here they are merely briefly cited. Question: What sūtra verse is the author of the treatise citing? Answer: It was spoken by the Buddha himself in the Hastikakṣya-sūtra, hence the phrase "I say are just emptiness".