中觀論疏 2.14

2.14

今次明體中者，即是收用歸體。所以須此一重者，稟教之流聞說二諦，便作二解，即成二見。故《大品經》云「諸有二者，無道無果。」《涅槃經》云「明與無明，愚者謂二。」亦真之與俗，愚者謂二。今明諸佛菩薩無名相中強名相說，欲令因名相悟無名相，故不二而二名為二諦；欲令因不二二悟二不二，故名不二中道。以空有為世諦，世諦即生；有空為真諦，真諦名為滅。既稱空有即不有，故云不生；有空即非空，故云不滅。不生不滅，即是非真非俗中道。不常不斷者，亦得例上。真諦有佛無佛性相常住，故名為常；世諦有法虛假必歸磨滅，故稱為斷。如來說此因緣常無常，為令眾生了悟非常非無常，故名為中道，亦得展轉相釋。惑者聞非真非俗不生不滅中道，便為是常；既非真俗絕於真俗，故名為斷。為止此心，既非生滅亦非斷常乃名中道。不一不異者，若例上義以空有為世諦，世諦即是無差別差別，故名一異。以有空為真諦，真諦是差別無差別，故名異一。異一即非一、一異即非異，非異非一名為中道。若為成上者，惑者既聞中道不生不滅非常非斷，便謂泯然一相；若除一相，便謂中道亦有淺深，便是異相。以有所得人心必有所依，若不住一便墮於異。是故今明既非生滅斷常，即亦非一異。不來不出者，例上，明以空有為世諦，世諦故有來；有空為真諦，真諦息於有法，故名為去。如來說此來去，為令悟無來去。以來是不來相，來故來無所來；去是不去相，去故去無所去。不來不去，名為中道。若成上義者，既聞中道具上六不，便謂中道出二邊之外，故名為出。向執二邊，即中道不成；今捨二邊，故有中道，故中道始成。為息此心，明中非邊外，是故不出。尚無邊可出，何中可來？問：何故作如此釋？答：論云「以此八事總破一切法」。破一切法者，歷破眾生心所行事。眾生心唯行此八事中，故今皆悉不之，令心無所行，無所行故無所得，即是逈悟無生。故作此釋也。次結束之雖有四種中假合，但成一中一假。非真俗為體，故名為中；真俗為用，故稱為假。問：何故以非真俗為中、真俗為假？答：寄於兩非，息二邊之見，故名為中。實非真俗，為眾生故強作真俗名說，故真俗名假。二者體用悉名為中，以中是正義。以具有非真俗及以真俗，此義始正，故悉名為中。三者真俗非真俗皆是假。所以皆稱假者，並是如來假名字說，故皆悉是假。所以然者，道門未曾真俗，假說真俗，故真俗是假。亦未曾非真俗，假說非真俗，故非真俗亦是假。又真俗不自真俗，是非真俗真俗，真俗既是假，非真俗不自；非真俗由真俗，由真俗故非真俗，即非真俗亦是假。問：俱中俱假復得合為一假，合成一中以不？答：具足真俗非真俗義乃圓正，始成一圓中。真俗非真俗不自，始是一圓假也。問：單明真俗是何中何假？直明非真俗復是何假何中？答：一往目之非真俗為體假、真俗為用假，真俗為用中、非真俗為體中。所以作此語者，為欲釋論文中假，故一往立於體用。復為對由來真俗是體，無有非真俗體故，明真俗是用、非真俗方是體，令其捨真俗二見得逈悟耳。若守此語作解者，其過更深。師又云：「直稱體用即無復縱迹。所以然者，既稱體用，即是因緣。因緣體用即寂滅性，云何更守此言耶？如體用一事既爾，六根所對四儀動靜常須識其是因緣。若精識因緣，則知因緣四儀未曾四與不四，無復下心處。所以於此四儀不起愛見，即常與道合。」師又云：「凡有所說皆為息病，病息則語盡。如雹摧草，草死而雹消。不得復守言作解，守言作解還復成病，無得解脫。」又師云：「以觀心發言即言不動觀，言不動觀竟何嘗言？」師又云：「寄言以顯道，實無言可寄，即知言不異道。既無言可寄，何道可寄言？即心下一無所依。若復依此無所依，即無依還是依。」冀逈悟之賓望玄指而一變，舉一可例諸耳。問：師何故立於中假？復以何義破中假耶？答：上已釋竟，今當重說。對由來性義，是故立假，治學教偏病。所以明中，令捨偏不著中，性去不留假。即須知偏捨無所捨，性去無所去。昔山中學士名慧靜法師云：「惑去論主去，此去無所去。」而遂捨偏著中，除性立假。以此安心，即畢竟不見佛。所以然者，佛心無所依，汝心有所寄，乃與佛隔，何由見佛？為此義故須破之。又須破中假者，人未學三論，已懷數論之解。今聽三論，又作解以安於心。既同安於心，即俱是有所得，與舊何異？又過甚他人。所以然者，昔既得數論舊解，今復得三論新智，即更加一見。師云：「此是足載耳。可謂學彌廣、倒彌多。而經論意在息心達本源，故號為沙門。又息之以至於無息矣。」所言不破中假者，體道之人達此性假本來是道，不須破之。既欲破之，豈非破於道耶？最須深見此意。而今言破者，為其不知所立性假本來是道，故用道為非道。今還令其悟非道為道，故云破耳，實不破也。二者又須知性即是假，凡夫顛倒謂假成性，諸佛觀之性常是假，故云一切世諦若於如來常是第一義諦。三者體道之人知此道未曾假性，假性出自兩緣。亦如一道未曾真俗，真俗出自二緣。四者尋教之流須識諸佛菩薩內得無礙之觀、外有無方之辨，說假為性、說性為假，說性假為非性假、非性假為性假。若守片言，便喪圓意，非學三論者矣。

Next, explaining the middle way by eliminating the two truths to return to non-duality means gathering function to return to essence. The reason this single tier is necessary is that those who receive the teachings, upon hearing the two truths expounded, immediately form dual interpretations, which then become dual views. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: 'Whatever is dual has neither path nor fruit.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'As for illumination and ignorance, the foolish regard them as two.' Likewise, as for the ultimate and the conventional, the foolish regard them as two. Now it is explained that all buddhas and bodhisattvas, within what is without name or mark, forcefully name and mark them in their exposition, wishing to cause beings, by means of names and marks, to awaken to the absence of names and marks; thus, being non-dual yet dual, they are called the two truths. Wishing to cause beings, through this non-dual duality, to awaken to the duality that is non-dual, it is called the non-dual middle way. Taking emptiness-and-existence as the conventional truth, the conventional truth is arising; taking existence-and-emptiness as the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is termed cessation. Since emptiness-and-existence is termed not existent, it is called non-arising; since existence-and-emptiness is not empty, it is called non-cessation. Non-arising and non-cessation is precisely the middle way of neither-ultimate-nor-conventional. Non-permanence and non-annihilation can also be patterned after the above: in the ultimate truth, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and marks are permanently abiding, hence it is called permanence; in the conventional truth, existent dharmas are provisional and must inevitably return to destruction, hence it is called annihilation. The Tathāgata spoke of this conditional permanence and impermanence in order to cause sentient beings to understand and awaken to neither-permanence-nor-impermanence; hence it is called the middle way. They may also be mutually interpreted in turns: a deluded person, hearing of the middle way of neither-ultimate-nor-conventional and non-arising and non-cessation, takes it to be permanence; and since it is neither ultimate nor conventional and severs ultimate and conventional, he calls it annihilation. To halt this mind, neither arising nor cessation nor annihilation nor permanence is called the middle way. As for neither unity nor difference: if patterned after the above meaning, taking emptiness-and-existence as the conventional truth, the conventional truth is non-differentiation-in-differentiation, hence it is called unity-and-difference; taking existence-and-emptiness as the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is differentiation-in-non-differentiation, hence it is called difference-and-unity. Difference-and-unity is not unity; unity-and-difference is not difference. Neither difference nor unity is called the middle way. If to establish the above: a deluded person, having heard that the middle way is neither arising nor ceasing, neither permanent nor annihilated, thinks it is an obliterated single mark; if that single mark is removed, he thinks the middle way also has shallow and deep, which is a mark of difference. Because the mind that has something to attain must have something to rely upon, if it does not abide in unity it falls into difference. Therefore it is now explained that since it is neither arising-and-ceasing nor annihilation-and-permanence, it is also neither unity nor difference. As for neither coming nor going: patterned after the above, it is explained that taking emptiness-and-existence as the conventional truth, because of the conventional truth there is coming; taking existence-and-emptiness as the ultimate truth, the ultimate truth rests existent dharmas, hence it is called going. The Tathāgata spoke of this coming and going in order to cause realization of no coming and no going. Because coming has the mark of non-coming, in coming there is nowhere to come from; because going has the mark of non-going, in going there is nowhere to go to. Neither coming nor going is called the middle way. If to establish the above meaning: having heard that the middle way is endowed with the above six negations, one thinks that the middle way goes beyond the two extremes, hence it is called going out. Previously grasping the two extremes, the middle way was not established; now renouncing the two extremes, there is the middle way, and thus the middle way begins to be established. To halt this mind, it is explained that the middle is not outside the extremes, and therefore it does not go out. Since there is not even an extreme to go out of, what middle could come? Question: Why make such an interpretation? Answer: The treatise states, 'With these eight matters, it refutes all dharmas comprehensively.' To refute all dharmas means to refute successively the operations of the minds of sentient beings. The minds of sentient beings operate only within these eight matters; therefore now all of them are negated, causing the mind to have nowhere to operate. Because it has nowhere to operate, it has nothing to attain, which is the transcendent awakening to non-arising. Hence this explanation is made. Next, to summarize: although there are four kinds of middle and provisional, together they only form one middle and one provisional. Neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is the essence, hence it is called the middle; ultimate-and-conventional is the function, hence it is termed the provisional. Question: Why is neither-ultimate-nor-conventional taken as the middle, and ultimate-and-conventional taken as the provisional? Answer: Entrusted to the two negations, resting views of the two extremes, it is therefore called the middle. In reality it is neither ultimate nor conventional; for the sake of sentient beings, names of ultimate and conventional are forcefully used to expound it, so ultimate-and-conventional is termed provisional. Second, both essence and function are called the middle, because the middle is the correct meaning. Because it is endowed with neither-ultimate-nor-conventional as well as ultimate-and-conventional, this meaning begins to be correct, and so all are called the middle. Third, both ultimate-and-conventional and neither-ultimate-nor-conventional are provisional. The reason all are termed provisional is that both are provisional nominal designations spoken by the Tathāgata, and so all are provisional. Why is this so? The gate of the Way has never been ultimate and conventional, yet provisionally speaks of ultimate and conventional; hence ultimate-and-conventional is provisional. Nor has it ever been neither-ultimate-nor-conventional, yet provisionally speaks of neither-ultimate-nor-conventional; hence neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is also provisional. Furthermore, ultimate and conventional are not intrinsically ultimate and conventional; they are the ultimate and conventional of neither-ultimate-nor-conventional. Since ultimate and conventional are provisional, neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is not intrinsic; neither-ultimate-nor-conventional depends on ultimate and conventional, and because it depends on ultimate and conventional, it is neither-ultimate-nor-conventional; thus neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is also provisional. Question: Can all-middle and all-provisional further be combined into one provisional and combined into one middle, or not? Answer: Fully possessing the meaning of ultimate-and-conventional and neither-ultimate-nor-conventional, it is round and correct, and only then forms one perfect middle. Ultimate-and-conventional and neither-ultimate-nor-conventional not being intrinsic, it only then is one perfect provisional. Question: Explaining purely ultimate-and-conventional, what middle and what provisional is it? Explaining directly neither-ultimate-nor-conventional, what provisional and what middle is it? Answer: Provisionally speaking, neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is the provisional of essence, and ultimate-and-conventional is the provisional of function; ultimate-and-conventional is the middle of function, and neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is the middle of essence. The reason this is stated is to explain the middle and provisional in the text of the treatise; thus essence and function are provisionally established. Moreover, in response to the traditional view that ultimate and conventional are essence and that there is no essence of neither-ultimate-nor-conventional, it is explained that ultimate and conventional are function and only neither-ultimate-nor-conventional is essence, in order to make them renounce the two views of ultimate and conventional and attain transcendent awakening. If one clings to these words and forms an understanding, the error is even deeper. The Master also said: 'If one directly speaks of essence and function, there are no longer any traces. Why is this so? Since they are termed essence and function, they are dependent origination. The essence and function of dependent origination are of quiescent nature; how could one further cling to these words? Just as the single matter of essence and function is so, regarding the movement and stillness of the four postures confronted by the six faculties, one must always recognize that they are dependent origination. If one thoroughly recognizes dependent origination, one knows that the four postures of dependent origination have never been four nor not-four, and there is no longer any place for the mind to alight. Therefore, not giving rise to attachment and views regarding these four postures, one is constantly in accord with the Way.' The Master also said: 'All that is expounded is to quell illness; when the illness is quelled, speech is exhausted. Like hail crushing grass, when the grass dies the hail melts away. One must not again cling to words and form an understanding; clinging to words and forming an understanding turns back into illness, and there is no attaining liberation.' The Master also said: 'Giving rise to speech from the contemplating mind, words do not stir contemplation; words not stirring contemplation, in the end what has ever been spoken?' The Master also said: 'Entrusting to words to reveal the Way, in reality there are no words to entrust to; one thus knows that words are not different from the Way. Since there are no words to entrust to, what Way could be entrusted to words? That is, beneath the mind there is nothing whatever to rely upon. If one further relies upon this non-reliance, then non-reliance is still reliance.' May those guests of transcendent awakening look toward the profound purport and undergo a transformation; adducing one case, all others can be known by analogy. Question: Why did the Master establish middle and provisional? And by what meaning did he refute middle and provisional? Answer: It has already been explained above; now it shall be stated again. In response to the traditional meaning of intrinsic nature, the provisional was established to treat the illness of bias in learning the teachings. The reason the middle was explained is to make one renounce bias without clinging to the middle, so that intrinsic nature is eliminated without retaining the provisional. That is, one must know that bias is renounced with nothing to renounce, and intrinsic nature is eliminated with nowhere to go. Formerly, a scholar in the mountains named Dharma Master Huijing said: 'When delusion goes, the author of the treatise goes; this going has nowhere to go.' Yet people subsequently renounce bias and cling to the middle, removing intrinsic nature and establishing the provisional. Settling the mind with this, they ultimately do not see the Buddha. Why is this so? The Buddha's mind has nothing to rely upon; your mind has something to lodge in, and thus you are separated from the Buddha; how could you see the Buddha? For this reason, it must be refuted. Furthermore, the reason middle and provisional must be refuted is that before people study the Three Treatises, they already harbor the understandings of the Abhidharma and treatises. Now hearing the Three Treatises, they again make an understanding to settle their minds. Since both alike settle the mind, they both alike have something to attain; how is this different from the old? Moreover, their error exceeds that of others. Why is this so? Formerly they had attained the old understanding of the treatises, and now they have further attained the new knowledge of the Three Treatises; thus they have added yet another view. The Master said: 'This is merely loading on more burden. It may be called: the wider the learning, the more numerous the inversions. Yet the intent of the sūtras and treatises lies in quieting the mind to reach the fundamental source; hence one is named a śramaṇa. Moreover, quiet it until there is nothing to quiet.' As for saying that middle and provisional are not refuted: one who embodies the Way realizes that this nature and provisional are originally the Way, and there is no need to refute them. If one wishes to refute them, would that not be refuting the Way? One must most deeply perceive this intent. That it is now said to be refuted is because they do not know that the established nature and provisional are originally the Way, and thus they take the Way to be non-Way. Now making them again awaken to non-Way being the Way, it is merely called refuting, but in reality there is no refuting. Second, one must also know that intrinsic nature is precisely provisional; ordinary beings, inverted, claim that the provisional constitutes intrinsic nature. When the buddhas contemplate it, intrinsic nature is constantly provisional; hence it is said that all conventional truth, with respect to the Tathāgata, is constantly supreme truth. Third, one who embodies the Way knows that this Way has never been provisional or intrinsic nature; provisional and intrinsic nature emerge from two conditions. Just as the single Way has never been ultimate or conventional, ultimate and conventional emerge from two conditions. Fourth, those who examine the teachings must recognize that all buddhas and bodhisattvas internally attain unhindered contemplation and externally have boundless eloquence: they speak of the provisional as intrinsic nature and speak of intrinsic nature as the provisional; they speak of nature-and-provisional as non-nature-and-provisional, and non-nature-and-provisional as nature-and-provisional. If one clings to a one-sided word, one loses the complete meaning, and is not one who studies the Three Treatises.