中觀論疏 10.30

10.30

就文亦二：初偈列諸見、次兩偈明諸見空。初又二：上半明諸見體、下半辨起諸見處。上半明諸見體為二：初句明於出世人中起於四見、次句辨世間法中八見。所以俱明此二者，眾生起見不過世出世也。下半明起見處者，明出世四見依涅槃起。問：計如來有無依如來起，云何依涅槃起？答：惑者見如來涅槃，是故推拆，或謂畢竟涅槃無復如來、或言法身常住猶有於佛。又云應身無、法身有。又云佛是中道故非有非無。故計如來有無，從涅槃起也。下明八見，依二世起也。問：此偈何故世出世二見合一處列耶？答：此中舉涅槃四見，等諸邪見皆是一類，故並破之。〈如來品〉中亦爾，前明如來空不空四見，次及常邊等，於八見合列之。如經中云「佛見、法見及斷常見，皆一類也。」長行為四：前釋偈文、次釋偈意。前釋上半。言「三種十二見」者，出世四見、世間八見，此之三種為十二。「如來滅後有無等」下，第二釋下半偈意。明起見處同，故知平等；四見既畢竟空，涅槃亦爾。第三從「如來滅後有無等不可得」下，明正觀撿察俱不可得故。「是故」下等四，總結無異，故平等也。「一切法空故」下，第二兩偈明諸見空，即舉一異者，一異為本、諸見為末，本來皆空也。「諸法不可得」下，此偈來有遠近三意：一者總結二十五品、明大乘觀意。故長行云：從〈因緣品〉來至〈涅槃品〉，橫破二十五條、竪窮四句皆不可得，即是諸法實相，名為中道，故云諸法不可得。以因中發觀故，橫滅二十五條、竪除四句戲論。「無人」者，下半略結無五事：一無九道所化眾生。「無處」者，二無有淨穢五種國土。五種謂，一純淨、二純不淨、三前淨後不淨、四前不淨後淨、五淨穢雜土。報應各五，名為十土。「佛」者，三明無三世十方諸化主也。「亦無所說」者，四無所化教門，略即五乘、廣即八萬法藏，皆不可得。五明無有三世時，此句出在長行、二者是此品第三。前之二門略廣破邪涅槃、申正涅槃在義以竟，今是第三次明總結破申大意。上半還牒總破，如前釋。下半別結五事：一無稟涅槃教人、二無說涅槃教處、三無說涅槃教時、四無說涅槃教主、五無涅槃可說也。三者近結前之二偈，破六十二見也。

Regarding the text, there are also two parts: first, a verse lists all the views; next, two verses clarify the emptiness of all views. The first also has two parts: the first half clarifies the essence of all views; the second half discerns the locus whence all views arise. The first half clarifies the essence of all views in two [lines]: the first line clarifies the arising of the four views regarding transmundane persons; the next line discerns the eight views regarding mundane phenomena. The reason both of these are clarified together is that sentient beings' arising of views does not go beyond the mundane and transmundane. As for the second half clarifying the locus of arising views, it clarifies that the four transmundane views arise in reliance on nirvāṇa. Question: Reckoning the existence or non-existence of the Tathāgata arises in reliance on the Tathāgata; why does it arise in reliance on nirvāṇa? Answer: Confused persons see the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa, and therefore analyze it: some claim that in ultimate nirvāṇa there is no longer a Tathāgata; some claim that the dharma-body is permanently abiding and there is still a Buddha. Again, they say the response-body does not exist while the dharma-body exists. Again, they say that because the Buddha is the middle way, he is neither existent nor non-existent. Therefore, reckoning the existence or non-existence of the Tathāgata arises from nirvāṇa. Below, it clarifies that the eight views arise in reliance on the two periods of time. Question: Why are the two views, mundane and transmundane, listed together in one place in this verse? Answer: Here, citing the four views on nirvāṇa, they are equal to all wrong views in being of one class; therefore, they are refuted together. It is also so in the "Chapter on the Tathāgata": first, it clarifies the four views on whether the Tathāgata is empty or non-empty, and next reaches permanence, boundaries, and so forth, listing them together among the eight views. Just as the sūtra states: "Views of the Buddha, views of the Dharma, and views of annihilation and permanence are all of one class." The prose has four parts: first, it explains the words of the verse; next, it explains the meaning of the verse. First, it explains the first half. Regarding "three kinds of twelve views": the four transmundane views and the eight mundane views—these three kinds make twelve. From "[Views regarding] existence and non-existence after the Tathāgata's extinction, and so forth" downward, the second part explains the meaning of the second half of the verse. It clarifies that their loci of arising views are the same, so we know they are equal; since the four views are already ultimately empty, nirvāṇa is also so. The third part, from "[Views regarding] existence and non-existence after the Tathāgata's extinction, and so forth, are unobtainable" downward, clarifies that upon examination through correct contemplation, both are unobtainable. The fourth part, "Therefore..." and so forth, concludes in general that there is no difference, and thus they are equal. From "Because all dharmas are empty" downward, the second [part], two verses clarify the emptiness of all views, namely by citing oneness and difference: oneness and difference are the root, and all views are the branches; they are originally empty. From "All dharmas are unobtainable" downward, this verse appears with three intentions, remote and proximate: First, to summarize the twenty-five chapters and clarify the intention of Mahāyāna contemplation. Therefore, the prose states: From the "Chapter on Causes and Conditions" to the "Chapter on Nirvāṇa", horizontally refuting twenty-five items and vertically exhausting the four propositions, all are unobtainable; this is the true mark of all dharmas, called the middle way, and thus it says all dharmas are unobtainable. Because contemplation is initiated in the cause, horizontally it extinguishes twenty-five items and vertically it eliminates the prapañca of the four propositions. "No person": the second half briefly concludes that five things do not exist: first, there are no sentient beings in the nine realms to be transformed. "No place": second, there are no five kinds of lands, pure or defiled. The five kinds are: 1. purely pure, 2. purely impure, 3. previously pure and subsequently impure, 4. previously impure and subsequently pure, 5. mixed lands of pure and defiled. Retribution and response each have five, called the ten lands. "Buddha": third, it clarifies that there are no teaching masters across the three times and ten directions. "Nor anything that is taught": fourth, there are no teaching gates to transform [sentient beings]—briefly, the five vehicles; extensively, the eighty thousand Dharma treasures—all are unobtainable. Fifth, it clarifies that there is no time of the three periods of time; this sentence appears in the prose. Second, it is the third [section] of this chapter. The previous two gates, brief and extensive, have refuted false nirvāṇa and elucidated true nirvāṇa, their meanings being complete; now, this is the third, clarifying the overall conclusion of the main purport of refuting and elucidating. The first half reiterates the general refutation, as explained before. The second half specifically concludes with the five things: 1. there is no person receiving the teaching of nirvāṇa; 2. there is no place where the teaching of nirvāṇa is spoken; 3. there is no time when the teaching of nirvāṇa is spoken; 4. there is no master speaking the teaching of nirvāṇa; 5. there is no nirvāṇa that can be spoken. Third, it proximately concludes the preceding two verses, refuting the sixty-two views.