中觀論疏 10.14

10.14

「問曰」下，第二別明無大乘因果。今觀此文猶是小乘中佛乘名大乘義耳。前問、次答。問有二：初領前無也；「究竟道」下，第二立後有。立中為二：一立極法；「因是道故」下，立於至人。答中兩偈為二：初破其人法、第二破無因果。答意云：汝立人法自不成，則汝是破人法人也。《大論》第四卷迦旃延云：「先有菩提果遣智慧信語身云：『可修三十二相莊嚴身，我然後來。』」此先有果後修因。既先有果未有因，是何果耶？復何用修因耶？又先有菩提未有佛，故汝說不因菩提有佛。問：但破小乘因果，亦破有所得大乘耶？答：正破有所得大乘，傍破小耳。問：云何破大乘因果？答：汝言金剛心是無常生死位，後心是涅槃佛果常位，生死盡於前、佛果起於後，因滅無果前、果起無因後、豈是因果？因果不成故，即自破三寶，何關我破也。又問：因果定二不。答：因無常豈是果？果常豈是因？若爾，經云「諸有二者無道無果」。問：經云「行因得菩提果，得果竟後入生死教化眾生。」云何無也？答：菩薩不為行因取果，但為引道眾生故，夜半踰城捨欲，令悟無所有耳。若於菩薩，何曾言有生死？亦不言有涅槃，亦不言有因，亦不說有果，並是教化眾生故開二耳。又問：汝行因得菩提，為至果、為不至？至則常，不至則斷滅，並無因果。又菩提何時是因果？非因假名名之為因，非果假名名之為果。亦非四五，無四五果名四五，故云五菩提耳。為淺深假名淺深，故發心為淺、佛為深，四為因、佛為果耳。「雖復勤精進」下，第二破因果。明汝謂凡夫修因得佛果，凡夫時未有佛，佛時無復凡夫。若凡夫時定無佛者，雖復勤修終不得佛。以不得定不得、無佛定無佛，終不得為佛也。又此是用大乘破小乘義，大乘明一切眾生皆有佛性並皆成佛，小乘人不明一切眾生皆有佛性。若爾，既無佛性，雖復修行終不成佛。問：小乘人亦云一切眾生有三乘性，至忍法時餘二性非數緣滅，故三乘中隨成一乘。云何言不明佛性？答：大乘中明唯有佛性、無有餘性，故得成佛。小乘不明唯有佛性，則破大乘佛性義。既無大乘佛性，云何成佛？又小乘人有佛性，佛性是無常，破大乘佛性常義，故不得成佛。此偈即釋《涅槃經》文，故不應言但申波若。又依文釋此偈，小乘人謂六道性恒非佛性，性者體也，故凡聖體異。若爾，非定非，異定異，云何非得成是、凡得為聖耶？又問：大乘人明有佛性，得成佛不？答：有所得大乘人釋佛性皆不成。如雖有十家釋於佛性，皆云佛性定常，但當現為異。而眾生及心皆是無常，故心與眾生恒非佛性，云何成佛？

From 'The question says' onward, the second part specifically explains the absence of cause and effect in the Great Vehicle. Looking at this text now, it still means the Great Vehicle in the sense of the Buddha Vehicle within the Hīnayāna. First comes the question, followed by the answer. The question has two parts: first, acknowledging the preceding negation; from 'the ultimate path' onward, second, establishing subsequent existence. Within this establishment there are two parts: 1. establishing the ultimate Dharma; from 'because of this path' onward, establishing the supreme person. In the reply, two verses form two parts: first, refuting their person and dharma; second, refuting [their claim that we] lack cause and effect. The meaning of the reply is: when you establish the person and dharma, they are fundamentally untenable by your own standards; thus, it is you who destroy the person and dharma. In the fourth fascicle of the Da zhidu lun, Kātyāyana says: 'The fruit of bodhi first exists and sends wisdom and faith to tell the body: "Cultivate the thirty-two marks to adorn the body, and I will come afterward."' This is having the fruit first and cultivating the cause afterward. Since there is already a fruit prior to having a cause, what kind of fruit is this? Furthermore, what would be the use of cultivating a cause? Moreover, if bodhi exists first and the Buddha does not yet exist, then according to your assertion, the Buddha does not exist dependent on bodhi. Question: Does this refute only the cause and effect of the Hīnayāna, or does it also refute the Great Vehicle of apprehension? Answer: It primarily refutes the Great Vehicle of apprehension, and secondarily refutes the Hīnayāna. Question: How does it refute the cause and effect of the Great Vehicle? Answer: You say that the diamond-like mind is the impermanent stage of birth and death, while the subsequent mind is the permanent stage of the nirvāṇa of the Buddha-fruit; birth and death terminate prior, and the Buddha-fruit arises subsequent; the cause ceases without the fruit beforehand, and the fruit arises without the cause afterward—how can this be cause and effect? Since cause and effect are untenable, you yourself destroy the Three Jewels; what has that to do with my refuting them? Further question: Are cause and effect definitively two or not? Answer: If the cause is impermanent, how could it be the fruit? If the fruit is permanent, how could it be the cause? If so, the sūtra states, 'All who hold to duality have neither the path nor the fruit.' Question: The sūtra says: 'Practicing the cause, one obtains the fruit of bodhi; after obtaining the fruit, one enters birth and death to transform sentient beings.' How can this be non-existent? Answer: The bodhisattva does not practice the cause in order to attain the fruit; merely to guide sentient beings, he leaped over the city walls at midnight and abandoned desire, causing them to awaken to non-existence. For the bodhisattva, when did one ever speak of the existence of birth and death? Nor did one speak of nirvāṇa, nor of causes, nor of fruits; these are all dualities opened up merely to teach and transform sentient beings. Furthermore, we ask: When you practice the cause to attain bodhi, does it reach the fruit or not? If it reaches, it is permanent; if it does not reach, it is annihilated; in both cases, there is neither cause nor fruit. Moreover, when is bodhi ever a cause or a fruit? It is not a cause, yet provisionally named a cause; it is not a fruit, yet provisionally named a fruit. Nor is it four or five; lacking four or five fruits, they are named four or five, and therefore one speaks of the 'five bodhis.' Because of shallowness and depth, they are provisionally named shallow and deep; thus generating the aspiration is shallow, and the Buddha is deep; the four are causes, and the Buddha is the fruit. From 'Even if one were to exert diligent vigor' onward, the second part refutes cause and effect. It explains: you say that an ordinary person cultivates causes to attain the Buddha-fruit, but at the time of an ordinary person there is no Buddha yet, and at the time of a Buddha there is no longer an ordinary person. If at the time of an ordinary person there is definitively no Buddha, then even if one diligently cultivates, one will never attain Buddhahood. Because not attaining is definitively not attaining, and the absence of a Buddha is definitively the absence of a Buddha, one could never become a Buddha. Furthermore, this uses the Great Vehicle's doctrine to refute the Hīnayāna doctrine: the Great Vehicle explains that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature and will all attain Buddhahood, whereas the Hīnayāna practitioners do not explain that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. If so, since they lack Buddha-nature, even if they cultivate practice, they will ultimately never attain Buddhahood. Question: Hīnayāna practitioners also say that all sentient beings have the nature of the three vehicles, and that when reaching the stage of patience, the remaining two natures undergo non-analytical cessation, so that among the three vehicles one attains whichever one vehicle applies. Why say they do not explain Buddha-nature? Answer: In the Great Vehicle it is explained that there is only Buddha-nature and no other nature, hence Buddhahood is attained. The Hīnayāna does not explain that there is only Buddha-nature, and thus they destroy the Great Vehicle's doctrine of Buddha-nature. Since they lack the Buddha-nature of the Great Vehicle, how could they attain Buddhahood? Furthermore, if Hīnayāna practitioners have a Buddha-nature, that Buddha-nature is impermanent, which destroys the Great Vehicle's doctrine of the permanence of Buddha-nature; therefore they cannot attain Buddhahood. This verse directly interprets the text of the Nirvāṇa-sūtra; hence one should not say it only elucidates the Prajñāpāramitā. Moreover, explaining this verse according to the text: Hīnayāna practitioners assert that the nature of the six destinies is perpetually not Buddha-nature, nature being substance; hence the substances of the ordinary person and the noble one are different. If so, what is not is definitively not, and what is different is definitively different; how could what is not become what is, or an ordinary person become a noble one? Further question: Followers of the Great Vehicle explain that there is Buddha-nature; do they attain Buddhahood? Answer: The explanations of Buddha-nature by Great Vehicle followers of apprehension are all untenable. For instance, although ten schools explain Buddha-nature, all say Buddha-nature is definitively permanent, differing only regarding whether it is future or present. Yet sentient beings and the mind are both impermanent; hence the mind and sentient beings are perpetually not Buddha-nature—how could they attain Buddhahood?