中觀論疏 10.17

10.17

「若無有空者」下，論主答中第三總結誡勸。此品具破世出世，故須明誡勸。又得失是於大事，如《波若》云「波若為大事故起，所謂示是道非道。」今亦爾，示有所得定性此非是道，示無所得因緣名之為道，故次明誡勸。前偈明誡、次偈明勸。前偈誡令捨一切有所得定性。汝若執有定性，世出世一切得者不得、一切失者不失，故宜應捨性。偈中以定性故所以未得不得，無斷煩惱及盡苦也。次偈勸學因緣，一切得者得、一切失者皆失。偈中略明見因緣有二種利益：一者見人則是見佛、次明見法則見四諦。長行云見因緣則見法身者，因緣即寂滅性，寂滅性則絕四句、超百非，故〈如來品〉以寂滅為法身。又只丈六即是法身，故高丈六而不見其頂，下豈定下耶？若言其高，那復丈六？故知不高不下、非邊無邊。故肇師云：「豈捨丈六而遠求法身」，《涅槃》云「吾今此身即是法身」也。問：見因緣但見法身，亦見應身？答：見因緣寂滅即見法身，見寂滅因緣即見應身也。若三身明義，見七尺身具見三身。七尺本寂滅即法身，見於法身與法身相應即應身，而七尺宛然故是化身。見四諦者，見寂滅因緣即見苦集，見因緣寂滅即見滅道。《涅槃經》「見緣起為見法，見法為見佛，見佛見佛性。」即是今論所引。問：論主何故明見因緣？答：須識此論大意及佛法大宗正破性、申因緣。上破性有性空竟，今申因緣有。因緣有即畢竟空，故是因緣空。宜須以此為正意也。

From "If there were no emptiness" onwards is the third part of the treatise master's answer, a general conclusion with admonition and exhortation. Because this chapter comprehensively refutes both the worldly and the transworldly, admonition and exhortation must be stated. Furthermore, gain and loss concern a great matter; as the Prajñā[-sūtra] says: "Prajñā arises for the sake of a great matter, namely, pointing out what is the path and what is not the path." Here it is also like this: pointing out that possessing attainment and a fixed intrinsic nature is not the path, and pointing out that non-attainment and causes and conditions are called the path; therefore, admonition and exhortation are stated next. The preceding gāthā provides the admonition; the subsequent gāthā provides the exhortation. The preceding gāthā admonishes one to abandon all clinging to attainment and fixed intrinsic nature: if you cling to a fixed intrinsic nature, then all those who attain in the worldly and transworldly realms would not attain, and all those who lose would not lose; therefore, one should abandon intrinsic nature. In the gāthā, because of fixed intrinsic nature, what has not yet been attained cannot be attained, and there would be no severing of afflictions nor ending of suffering. The subsequent gāthā exhorts one to study causes and conditions, whereby all who attain will attain, and all who lose will lose. In the gāthā, seeing causes and conditions is briefly explained as having two kinds of benefit: first, seeing the person is seeing the Buddha; next, seeing the dharma is seeing the four truths. When the prose says that seeing causes and conditions is seeing the Dharmakāya, it is because causes and conditions are the nature of quiescence, and the nature of quiescence cuts off the four propositions and transcends the hundred negations; therefore, "Chapter on the Tathāgata" takes quiescence as the Dharmakāya. Furthermore, the sixteen-foot body is just the Dharmakāya; therefore, though sixteen feet tall, its summit cannot be seen—how could its height be fixed as short? If you say it is tall, how could it be sixteen feet? Thus we know it is neither high nor low, neither bounded nor boundless. Therefore Master Sengzhao said: "How could one abandon the sixteen-foot body to seek the Dharmakāya far away?" The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "My present body is just the Dharmakāya." Question: Does seeing causes and conditions mean seeing only the Dharmakāya, or also seeing the Saṃbhogakāya? Answer: Seeing the quiescence of causes and conditions is seeing the Dharmakāya; seeing the causes and conditions of quiescence is seeing the Saṃbhogakāya. If explained according to the three bodies, seeing the seven-foot body is completely seeing the three bodies: the seven-foot body being fundamentally quiescent is the Dharmakāya; seeing the Dharmakāya and corresponding with the Dharmakāya is the Saṃbhogakāya; while the seven-foot body appearing distinctly is the Nirmāṇakāya. As for seeing the four truths: seeing the causes and conditions of quiescence is seeing suffering and accumulation; seeing the quiescence of causes and conditions is seeing cessation and the path. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "To see dependent origination is to see the Dharma; to see the Dharma is to see the Buddha; to see the Buddha is to see the Buddha-nature." This is what is cited in the present treatise. Question: For what reason does the treatise master explain seeing causes and conditions? Answer: One must recognize the treatise's great purport and the overarching principle of the Buddhadharma: it precisely refutes intrinsic nature and elucidates causes and conditions. Above, having refuted intrinsic-nature existence and intrinsic-nature emptiness, it now elucidates dependent existence. Dependent existence is itself ultimate emptiness; therefore, it is the emptiness of dependent origination. One should definitely take this as the primary intention.