[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 2.31 # 中觀論疏 2.31 中觀論疏 2.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.31) 十者師云：「標此八不攝一切大小內外有所得人心之所行、口之所說，皆墮在八事中。今破此八事，即破一切大小內外有所得人，故明八不。所以然者，一切有所得人生心動念即是生，欲滅煩惱即是滅，謂己身無常為斷，有常住可求為常，真諦無相為一，世諦萬像不同為異，從無明流來為來，返本還原出去為出。裁起一念心，即具此八種顛倒。今一一歷心觀此無從，令一切有所得心畢竟清淨，故云不生不滅乃至不來不出也。」師常多作此意。所以然者，為三論未出之前，若毘曇、成實有所得大乘，及禪師、律師行道苦節，如此之人皆是有所得生滅斷常，障中道正觀。既障中道正觀，亦障假名因緣無方大用，故一向破洗令畢竟無遺，即悟實相。既悟實相之體，即解假名因緣無方大用也。問：若作如此十條者，豈非立義？師云：三論無義，云何更立？答：三論有破有申，破即無言不窮、申即無義不具。不應作斯問也。又作十條者，由來言八不但是一遣相明空，竟有何義？今為對此，故八不在言雖略、無義而不備，豈是空耶？又作十條者令得一正觀，即徹悟一切佛法。故釋迦於華嚴城內四衢道頭，見燃燈佛悟一不生，即是具足一切佛法。況了八事，不具足一切法乎？然此十條釋八不，一一皆須將自心來承取之。如破假實二生，前須自看己心，若見此身心有實生實滅即是實病，求之無從，故自實病得差。若為他說者，還為他檢實病無從，則他實病亦差。若自心中聞說因緣，即作因緣假解，成因緣病；以檢假生無縱迹處所，假病即差。為他說亦爾。如此之人於念念中自他俱益。《淨名》云「譬如勝怨，乃可為勇。」如此兼除老病死者，菩薩之謂也。又此人若自如此悟，名聖默然；還為眾生如此說者，名聖說法。故語默之間常順佛教，為諸佛護念。於念念中身心得住無生，名之為住。迴一切假實顛倒心，向於實相，名為迴向。得此心不可動，故名為地。所以常須看心。作此釋者，不違三世佛，真龍樹門人矣。問：常看自心者，大師何故斥外道、折毘曇、排成實、呵大乘耶？答：若自心起外道見，墮在外道，名為外道。乃至自心起大乘見，即名大乘執。故遍呵眾人，即是遍呵自心也。又大師云：「自心無所依。」今呵一切有所得人，此是隨他意語。若自有病無觀力而呵者，即是呵自他，是隨自意語，亦是隨他意語。問：但應釋八不，云何乃遍呵自他耶？答：以遍破自他，有所得心畢竟不生，即是釋於八不。所以然者，論主為學佛教人著語言名字故失無生，今聞八不無生還復作義解者，即八不還復成病，如此之人即不可化。所以然者，以尋經作有所得解，即佛不能化；學論復起依著之心，即菩薩不能化故。若經若論、佛與菩薩所不能化人，即知其人鈍根罪重。若經若論、佛與菩薩，即於其人並是毒藥。是以常須心無所依，即是悟八不也。問：心云何有所依耶？答：心如步屈虫，捨一取一，必定不得無所依。故捨外道著小乘、捨小乘著大乘、捨生還復住無生，故有所住著非八不意。問：有二種人，一者悟大乘無所得意，不解數論名教；二者精識一切名教，不學大乘無所得意。此二人中何者為勝？答：耳目之徒言識一切名教者勝。今以理論之，雖二人並失，而前者為勝。何以知然？佛雖說一切名教，意在無所得一相一味，謂離相解脫相。問：弘經通論須科文釋義次第生起，詳定違負會諸同異，云何一向作無所得觀耶？答：考尋聖人興世，諸所施為為顯中道，令因中發觀滅諸煩惱。若存著語言，傷佛意也。又百年之壽朝露非奢，宜以存道為急，而乃急其所緩、緩其所急，豈非一形之自誤耶。 > Tenth, the master said: "To set forth these eight negations is to subsume everything that the minds of all people who possess apprehension—Great \[Vehicle\] or Small, internal or external—put into practice, and everything their mouths express; all of it falls within these eight matters. Now, refuting these eight matters is precisely refuting all people who possess apprehension—Great or Small, internal or external; therefore, the eight negations are elucidated. Why is this? Whenever any person who possesses apprehension gives rise to a thought or stirs a notion, that is 'arising'; desiring to extinguish defilements is 'cessation'; regarding one's own body as impermanent is 'annihilation'; holding that there is an eternal abiding to be sought is 'permanence'; taking the ultimate truth as formless is 'unity'; taking the myriad forms of conventional truth as differing is 'diversity'; streaming forth from ignorance is 'coming'; and returning to the root and original source by departing is 'going out'. As soon as a single thought arises, it is endowed with these eight inversions. Now, contemplating these one by one throughout the mind as having no source makes all minds that possess apprehension ultimately pure; therefore it is said, 'neither arising nor ceasing' and so forth, up to 'neither coming nor going out.'" The master frequently maintained this purport. Why is this? Because before the Three Treatises appeared, those who practiced Abhidharma or the \*Tattvasiddhi\*, those of the Mahāyāna who possessed apprehension, and dhyāna masters and vinaya masters who practiced the path with ascetic discipline—such people all possessed apprehension regarding arising and ceasing, annihilation and permanence, which obstructed the correct contemplation of the middle way. Obstructing the correct contemplation of the middle way also obstructed the boundless great function of provisionally designated causes and conditions. Therefore, by refuting and washing away \[these errors\] completely and without remainder, one awakens to the true nature of reality. Once one has awakened to the substance of the true nature of reality, one understands the boundless great function of provisionally designated causes and conditions. Question: If you construct these ten items in this way, is that not establishing a thesis? The master said: In the Three Treatises there is no thesis; how could one establish another? Answer: The Three Treatises have both refutation and elucidation: in refutation, no statement is left unexhausted; in elucidation, no meaning is left unprovided. One should not ask such a question. Furthermore, as for setting forth the ten items: formerly people said that the eight negations merely discard characteristics and clarify emptiness, but what meaning could they have after all? Now, to address this, \[we show that\] although the eight negations are brief in words, there is no meaning that is not complete within them—how could they merely be empty? Furthermore, setting forth the ten items is done so that by attaining a single correct contemplation, one thoroughly awakens to all Buddha-dharmas. Thus, when Śākyamuni saw Dīpaṅkara Buddha at the crossroads in the city of Puṣpapura and awakened to a single non-arising, he was fully endowed with all Buddha-dharmas. How much more so when one comprehends the eight matters—would he not be fully endowed with all dharmas? However, when explaining the eight negations with these ten items, one must apply each of them to one's own mind. For example, when refuting the two kinds of arising—provisional and real—one must first inspect one's own mind: if one sees this body and mind as having real arising and real ceasing, that is the illness of 'reality'; seeking it without finding its source, one's own illness of 'reality' is cured. If one explains this for others, one likewise examines for them that the illness of 'reality' has no source, and their illness of 'reality' is also cured. If in one's own mind, hearing causes and conditions explained, one immediately forms an understanding of causes and conditions as provisional, that becomes the illness of 'causes and conditions'; by examining that provisional arising has no trace or location, the illness of 'provisionality' is cured. Explaining it for others is also like this. Such a person benefits both self and others in thought-moment after thought-moment. The \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa\* says: "Just as overcoming enemies can be called valour, so one who also removes old age, sickness, and death is called a bodhisattva." Furthermore, if this person awakens like this for himself, it is called noble silence; if he likewise explains it for sentient beings, it is called noble teaching of the Dharma. Therefore, between speaking and remaining silent, he always accords with the Buddha's teaching and is protected and held in mindful regard by all Buddhas. When in thought-moment after thought-moment body and mind come to abide in non-arising, it is called 'abiding'. Redirecting all inverted minds of the provisional and real toward the true nature of reality is called 'dedication'. When this mind is attained and cannot be shaken, it is called the 'ground'. Therefore, one must constantly watch the mind. One who makes such an explanation does not contradict the Buddhas of the three times, and is a true disciple of Nāgārjuna. Question: If one is constantly to watch one's own mind, why did the Great Master reprimand the non-Buddhists, dismantle the Abhidharma, dismiss the \*Tattvasiddhi\*, and rebuke the Mahāyāna? Answer: If in one's own mind non-Buddhist views arise and one falls into non-Buddhist ways, that is called 'non-Buddhist'. Up to, if in one's own mind Mahāyāna views arise, that is called 'attachment to the Mahāyāna'. Therefore, universally rebuking everyone is universally rebuking one's own mind. Furthermore, the Great Master said: "One's own mind has no reliance." Now, rebuking all people who possess apprehension is speech adapted to the minds of others. If one has one's own illness and lacks the power of contemplation yet rebukes others, that is rebuking both self and others; it is speech according to one's own intent, and also speech adapted to the minds of others. Question: You should merely explain the eight negations; why do you universally rebuke both self and others? Answer: Because universally refuting self and others so that the mind that possesses apprehension ultimately does not arise is precisely explaining the eight negations. Why is this? The treatise-master saw that those who study the Buddha's teachings cling to words and names and thereby lose non-arising. Now, if upon hearing the eight negations of non-arising they again form theoretical understandings, then the eight negations in turn become an illness, and such people cannot be transformed. Why is this? Because if one examines the sūtras and forms understandings of apprehension, the Buddha cannot transform him; if one studies the treatises and again gives rise to a mind of reliance and attachment, the bodhisattvas cannot transform him. If a person cannot be transformed by either sūtras or treatises, by either the Buddha or the bodhisattvas, one knows that this person has dull faculties and heavy transgressions. Both sūtras and treatises, the Buddha and the bodhisattvas, are for that person nothing but poison. Therefore, the mind must always have nothing upon which to rely, which is precisely awakening to the eight negations. Question: How does the mind have something upon which to rely? Answer: The mind is like an inchworm, abandoning one thing to grasp another; it is utterly incapable of having nothing upon which to rely. Thus, abandoning non-Buddhist views it clings to the Small Vehicle; abandoning the Small Vehicle it clings to the Great Vehicle; abandoning arising it turns around and abides in non-arising. Therefore, having anywhere to abide or cling to is not the intent of the eight negations. Question: There are two kinds of people: the first awakens to the Mahāyāna intent of non-apprehension, but does not understand the nominal teachings of Abhidharma and treatises; the second thoroughly understands all nominal teachings, but does not train in the Mahāyāna intent of non-apprehension. Between these two people, which is superior? Answer: People of ordinary hearing and sight would say that the one who understands all nominal teachings is superior. Now, discussing it from the standpoint of principle, although both are at fault, the former is superior. How is this known? Although the Buddha spoke all nominal teachings, his intention lay in the single characteristic and single flavour of non-apprehension—namely, the characteristic of detachment from characteristics, the characteristic of liberation. Question: When propagating the sūtras and explaining the treatises, one must structure the text, explain the meanings, show how they arise in sequence, critically examine agreements and contradictions, and synthesize differences and similarities; why do you single-mindedly practice the contemplation of non-apprehension? Answer: When we examine why the sagely person appeared in the world, everything he set forth was done to reveal the middle way, causing \[beings\] to generate contemplation within the causal stage and eliminate all defilements. If one preserves and clings to words, one harms the Buddha's intent. Furthermore, a lifespan of a hundred years is no longer than the morning dew; one ought to take preserving the path as urgent. Yet to treat as urgent what is secondary, and treat as secondary what is urgent—is that not to mislead oneself for an entire lifetime? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.30) - [Next: 2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.32) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.2.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.31) · Pramāṇa