中觀論疏 10.36

10.36

就文為二：第一明順觀、第二明逆觀。順觀為二：第一別明十二緣觀、第二總結。明十二支，即十二別。「眾生癡所覆」者，此第一辨無明支。言無明者，從所無受稱，謂無慧之明稱為無明。問：今分別十二相生釋名辨體，與數論何異？答：經云「無明體性本不有，妄想因緣和合而生。無所有故假名無明，是故我說名無明。」今分別空，謂眾生虛妄顛倒，故作三世因果。此是無分別中善分別故，欲令虛妄眾生因此分別，悟無分別息虛妄心也。然顛倒眾生已有十二流轉，今復更執有定性而推折之，非但十二不除，而更增十二也。以此因緣，不同他釋。問：既不同數論所釋，應不用數論名教釋此品耶？答：小乘法中亦有四句。一者若三藏所無、眾師橫造，則棄而不取。二若視經聖口得適化之言，取而不破。三學教起迷得言失意，則破其能迷之情，收其所惑之教。四若望道門無所破取。四句之中，今用其二：一者若用佛經名教釋此品者，是取而不破；二若用數論解其文者，則亦破亦取。問：十使中無明、三毒中無明，與無明支有何異也？答：十使中無明，唯取無明使為無明。三毒中無明，除貪瞋二使已外，餘皆是無明。今此中通取一切煩惱悉為無明，為發業故。又雖通此一切煩惱，示無明是生死本，故但說無明。

In terms of the text, there are two parts: first, explaining forward contemplation; second, explaining reverse contemplation. Forward contemplation has two parts: first, explaining contemplation of the twelve links individually; second, a general conclusion. Explaining the twelve links means twelve individual [sections]. "Sentient beings are covered by ignorance": this is the first, discerning the link of ignorance. "Ignorance" (avidyā) takes its name from what is absent; that is, the absence of the brightness of wisdom is called ignorance. Question: Now, in differentiating the mutual arising of the twelve links, explaining their names, and determining their essence, how does this differ from the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma? Answer: A sūtra says: "The essence and nature of ignorance originally do not exist; it arises from the combination of causes and conditions through false discrimination. Because it has no existence, it is provisionally named ignorance; therefore I say it is called ignorance." Now, differentiating emptiness means that sentient beings, being false and deluded, thereby create causes and effects across the three times. Because this is a skillful differentiation within non-differentiation, it aims to cause false sentient beings, by means of this differentiation, to awaken to non-differentiation and put an end to the false mind. However, deluded sentient beings already cycle through the twelve links; if one now further grasps at them as having fixed natures and analyzes them accordingly, not only are the twelve not eliminated, but twelve more are added. For this reason, it is not the same as the explanations of others. Question: Since it is not the same as what is explained in the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, should one not use the terms and doctrines of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma to explain this chapter? Answer: In the Hīnayāna Dharma there are also four propositions: 1. If it is not found in the Tripiṭaka and is fabricated arbitrarily by various masters, it is discarded and not accepted. 2. If it is seen to accord with the holy words spoken by the mouth of the Buddha in the sūtras, suitable for conversion, it is accepted and not refuted. 3. If someone studies the teaching and gives rise to delusion, grasping the words but losing the meaning, one refutes the mind capable of delusion while retaining the teaching about which they were confused. 4. If considered from the perspective of the gateway of the Way, there is nothing to refute and nothing to accept. Among these four propositions, two are used here: first, if one uses the terms and doctrines of the Buddha's sūtras to explain this chapter, that is accepting without refuting; second, if one uses the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma to explain its text, that is both refuting and accepting. Question: How does ignorance among the ten underlying afflictions (anuśaya) and ignorance among the three poisons differ from the link of ignorance? Answer: Ignorance among the ten underlying afflictions refers solely to the underlying affliction of ignorance. Ignorance among the three poisons includes all remaining afflictions other than greed and anger. Here, it broadly takes all afflictions without exception as ignorance, because they initiate karma. Furthermore, although it broadly includes all these afflictions, to show that ignorance is the root of birth and death, only ignorance is spoken of.