中觀論疏 10.55

10.55

「是故當知」下，生起第二四偈，破前第二句過去世我不作今我。所以須此長行生起者，計過去世四句皆言過去世有我，然後方論其作、不作、亦作不作、非作非不作。上來就即離門求我不可得，論何物作不作耶？是故前結過去世無我，然後始破其過去我不作今我。四偈亦開為二：第一偈總非、次三偈別破。初偈為二：上半牒不作總非不作、下半牒異非異。問：上言我於過去世為有為無，今云何乃言過去世有我不作今我？答：前明過去無者，無現在我耳。又前偈云：我於過去世為無者，現在我於過去為無耳。不言過去都無有我，現在新有我也。問：前長行結云：過去世無我。今何故乃云過去我不作耶？答：前長行是結上奪破明無，今縱有之，即就其責覓又不可得，亦是無也。次三偈別破，即為三意：第一偈明有相離過、第二偈傳顯相離復有過、第三偈更廣出其二過。問：云何失因果耶？答：過去我造善惡因，竟不得果，故是無果。現在受苦樂我，非過去我，則不修因，故失因果也。並易見也。復次「如過去世中」下，第三章一偈，次破其第三亦作不作、非作非不作二句。所以但有一偈破者，前二門十偈以廣破根本二句，後二句既是枝末，是故略破。又亦作亦不作猶是作不作耳，非作非不作亦是作不作耳，故以前攝後，既破前二後二即破也。問：今但應破後二句，何故總非四句耶？答：一欲以前攝後、二欲以前例後，前二既去則例後亦亡。「我於未來世」下，第二一偈次破未來世四見。問：何故但一偈破？答：一欲以前例後、二明世異見同，若破於前即是破後也。

From "Therefore one should know" downward introduces the second set of four verses, refuting the preceding second proposition: that the past self did not make the present self. The reason this prose introduction is necessary is that those who postulate the four propositions regarding the past all claim there is a self in the past, and only then do they debate whether it made, did not make, both made and did not make, or neither made nor did not make [the present self]. Above, when seeking the self through the gates of identity and detachment, it could not be found; what thing could be debated as making or not making? Therefore, it first concludes that there is no self in the past, and only then begins to refute that the past self did not make the present self. The four verses are also opened into two: the first verse generally rejects it, and the next three verses refute it individually. The first verse has two [parts]: the upper half takes up "did not make" and generally rejects not-making; the lower half takes up "different" and rejects difference. Objection: Above it was said: Is the self existent or non-existent in the past? Why then is it now said that there is a self in the past that did not make the present self? Answer: Previously clarifying that it is non-existent in the past meant only that the present self does not exist there. Furthermore, the previous verse said that the self is non-existent in the past, meaning that the present self is non-existent in the past. It did not say that there is entirely no self in the past and that there is newly a self in the present. Objection: The previous prose concluded by saying that there is no self in the past. Why then does it now say that the past self did not make [the present]? Answer: The previous prose was an absolute refutation concluding above, clarifying non-existence; now, even conceding that it exists, when seeking and investigating it directly, it still cannot be found, which is also non-existence. The next three verses refute it individually, which constitute three points: the first verse clarifies that there is the fault of mutual detachment; the second verse progressively reveals that mutual detachment further has faults; the third verse more extensively brings out its two faults. Objection: How are cause and effect lost? Answer: If the past self creates good and bad causes but ultimately does not obtain the fruit, there is no fruit. If the self experiencing suffering and pleasure in the present is not the past self, then it did not cultivate the cause; thus cause and effect are lost. These are both easy to see. Furthermore, from "Just as in the past" downward, the third chapter of one verse next refutes its third and fourth propositions: "both made and did not make" and "neither made nor did not make." The reason there is only one verse refuting them is that the previous two gates, with ten verses, extensively refuted the two fundamental propositions; since the latter two propositions are branches, they are refuted briefly. Furthermore, "both made and did not make" is still just making and not making, and "neither made nor did not make" is also just making and not making; therefore, using the former to subsume the latter, once the former two are refuted, the latter two are immediately refuted. Objection: Now it should only refute the latter two propositions; why generally reject all four propositions? Answer: First, desiring to subsume the latter by the former; second, desiring to analogize the latter by the former: once the former two are gone, by analogy the latter are also eliminated. From "I in the future" downward, the second [section] of one verse next refutes the four views regarding the future. Objection: Why is there only one verse refuting them? Answer: First, desiring to analogize the latter by the former; second, clarifying that although the times differ, the views are identical: if one refutes the former, one thereby refutes the latter.