[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) › 2.7 # 中觀論疏 2.7 中觀論疏 2.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.7) 得失門第三。問：八不但是眾聖之得源，亦是群生之失本？答：悟無生即有三乘眾聖，迷八不即有六趣紛然，故《涅槃》云「是一味藥，隨其流處有六種味。」一味藥者，即即中道佛性。中道佛性不生不滅、不常不斷，即是八不。故知失於八不有六趣紛然。問：云何失於八不有六趣紛然？答：以不悟八不即不識二諦，不識二諦即二慧不生，二慧不生即有愛見煩惱，以煩惱故即便有業，以有業故即有生老病死憂悲苦惱。故知失於八不有六趣紛然。問：得失八不凡有幾人？答：且據二門各有四種。失人四者，一鈍根起愛眾生。二利根起見外道。三即此愛見眾生，迴心學佛小乘之教，但薄福鈍根遂成三失：一得語不得意，聞說小乘名，故云得語；不知說小通大，守指忘月，故名失意。二者語意俱失，如《智度論》呵迦旃延云「是語非大乘中說，亦三藏所無，蓋是諸論義師自作此說耳。」三者保執小乘遂謗方等，如五百部，為執諸法有決定相，不知佛意為解脫，故聞畢竟空如刀傷心。四者即此小乘人迴心學大乘，亦有三失：一得語不得意，聞說大作大解，成有所得大；不知是因緣，假名小大為表非大非小，故名為失。二者語意俱失，於大乘中種種推斥，非三藏義，亦方等所無。三者保執大乘遂撥無小，如《法華論》釋〈藥草喻品〉破菩薩病，以菩薩聞道理有一無有二乘，遂撥無小。雖一地所生、一雨所潤，而諸草木各有差別。道理乃唯有大，不妨於緣成小。而菩薩遂撥無小，守實喪權，故名為失。此之四人並不悟八不中道、不發生正觀，故成四種失。雖有四失，合成三迷：初之一失有顛倒病，不知是病、不知救治。次之一失，知其是病，欲求救治，但服邪藥，即舊病不除更增新病。後之二失，知其是病，求於救治，但無方便，服於甘露遂成毒藥，亦舊病不除更起新病。雖有四失，合成二過：初之二失自樹起迷、後之二失學教成病。初二人異者，初鈍根起愛，後利根起見。又初人但有一失，後人失中更復起失。所以然者，有此身心已名為失，而復推斥成九十六種異，故去城逾遠、岐路逾多。故《法華經》以此二人喻毒虫、惡鬼也。問：八不具於二諦，小乘人知諸法生得於世諦，云何言失？答：世諦是因緣無生生，而小乘之流執成性生，故失於世諦。尚失世諦，況第一義耶？問：方廣道人學於大乘，明一切法不生不滅畢竟空，應得八不。云何言失？答：八不無生者，蓋是因緣生無生，不壞生而說無生。而方廣之流執無生而失生，既失無生生亦失生無生，即俱壞二諦。問：如來出世正為何人？龍樹後興復斥何病？答：通而言之，佛並為四人，是故出世。但佛未出世，唯有前之二人，為破此二人故說五乘之教。此二人中有無聞非法者，以人天善根而成就之；有三乘根性者，說三乘之教。龍樹出世雖通為四人，此論正為大小乘人，故申大小兩教，傍為前二人也。又佛雖說五乘之教，意在大事因緣；四依雖申大小兩教，意歸一極，令悟中道發生正觀。次明得四人者，如前所明觀中道者凡有四種，中道即不生不滅八不義也，下智觀故得聲聞菩提、中智觀故得緣覺菩提、上智觀故得菩薩菩提、上上智觀故得佛菩提。菩提云智，即是因中發觀，故成於四人。此論合四人為二：前二十五品令因中發觀，得佛及菩薩菩提；後之二品令二乘人因中發觀，得二乘菩提。故後品云「前已聞大乘法入第一義，今欲聞聲聞法入第一義。」第一義即是中道，但悟有淺深，猶如三狩，故成四品。問：若三乘同觀中道，即三乘人同稟八不，何故經文云「為聲聞人說十二因緣生滅，為菩薩說十二無生滅」耶？答：大明聲聞凡有二種，一者得於人空、不得法空，不得法空故有十二相生；知無有我，故入第一義。大士具得二空，非但無我亦無十二，故入第一義，故異於彼二乘。二者聲聞之人具得二空，但聲聞前有十二，而折之令空方入第一義。菩薩知十二本自不生、今亦無滅，故入第一義空。如《智度論》釋大小二空，聲聞分折人法故人法空，菩薩知人法本性自空。雖有折法及本性不同，而同明入於空義。以同入空義，故三乘同入第一義。有折法不折法，故聲聞名於生滅觀，菩薩名無生滅觀。問：同入空者，空義有異以不？答：《玄義》中具釋，今略明一句。《智度論》云「二乘名但空，菩薩名不可得空。二乘但住於空名為單空，大士知空亦復空名不可得空。」《智度論》又云「二乘得二空如毛孔空，大士得二空如十方空也。」 > The third \[section\] is the gate of gain and loss. Question: Are the eight negations solely the source of gain for the multitude of noble ones, or are they also the root of loss for the multitude of sentient beings? Answer: Through awakening to the unproduced, there are the noble ones of the three vehicles; through being deluded about the eight negations, there is the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Thus the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: "There is a medicine of a single taste, which comes to have six tastes according to the places into which it flows." The medicine of a single taste is the middle way Buddha-nature. The middle way Buddha-nature is neither produced nor destroyed, neither permanent nor annihilated, which is precisely the eight negations. Therefore, we know that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Question: Why is it that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies? Answer: Because failing to awaken to the eight negations means one does not recognise the two truths; not recognising the two truths means the two wisdoms do not arise; the two wisdoms not arising means there are the afflictions of craving and views; on account of afflictions there is karma; on account of karma there are birth, aging, illness, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, and distress. Therefore, we know that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Question: In all, how many types of persons are there who gain or lose the eight negations? Answer: For now, drawing upon two divisions, each has four types. As for the four types of persons who lose: First, sentient beings of dull faculties who give rise to craving. Second, non-Buddhists of sharp faculties who give rise to views. Third, those very sentient beings of craving and views who redirect their minds to study the Buddha's Hīnayāna teachings, but possessing scant merit and dull faculties, they subsequently incur three losses: (1) gaining the words but missing the intent: hearing the terminology of Hīnayāna preached, they are said to gain the words; yet not understanding that preaching the small points to the great, they hold fast to the pointing finger and forget the moon, hence this is called missing the intent; (2) losing both words and intent: as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa scolds Kātyāyana, "These words were not spoken in the Mahāyāna, nor are they contained in the Tripiṭaka; these commentators have simply fabricated this discourse themselves"; (3) obstinately clinging to the Hīnayāna and subsequently disparaging the Vaipulya: like the five hundred sects, who cling to phenomena as having determinate characteristics, unaware that the Buddha's intent was liberation; thus hearing of ultimate emptiness is like a knife wounding their hearts. Fourth, these very Hīnayāna persons who redirect their minds to study the Mahāyāna also incur three losses: (1) gaining the words but missing the intent: hearing "great" preached, they form a conception of greatness and end up with an attained greatness; unaware that it is a provisional designation through causes and conditions, where "small" and "great" are used to express neither-great-nor-small, this is called a loss; (2) losing both words and intent: raising all sorts of dialectical refutations within the Mahāyāna that are neither the meaning of the Tripiṭaka nor contained in the Vaipulya; (3) obstinately clinging to the Mahāyāna and subsequently repudiating the small: as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, explaining the "Medicinal Herbs" chapter, refutes the error of bodhisattvas, for when bodhisattvas heard that in principle there is only the One and no two vehicles, they subsequently repudiated the small; yet though sprouted from a single earth and moistened by a single rain, the various grasses and trees each have their distinctions; while in principle there is only the great, this does not hinder becoming the small according to conditions; but bodhisattvas subsequently repudiated the small, preserving the real and abandoning the expedient, hence this is called a loss. These four types of persons all fail to awaken to the middle way of the eight negations and do not give rise to right contemplation, thereby incurring these four kinds of loss. Although there are four losses, they combine into three delusions: The first loss involves the illness of perversion, unaware that it is an illness and unaware of any remedy. The next loss involves knowing it to be an illness and seeking a remedy, but taking false medicine, so that not only is the old illness not cured, new illness is further added. The latter two losses involve knowing it to be an illness and seeking a remedy, but lacking expedient means, so that taking the ambrosia turns it into poison, and likewise the old illness is not cured while a new illness further arises. Although there are four losses, they combine into two faults: the first two losses give rise to delusion on their own, while the latter two losses incur illness from studying the teachings. As for the difference between the first two persons: the former has dull faculties and gives rise to craving; the latter has sharp faculties and gives rise to views. Furthermore, the former person has only a single loss, while the latter person further gives rise to losses within loss. Why is this so? Having this body and mind is already called a loss, and further dialectically categorising them into ninety-six kinds of differences makes them stray ever farther from the city and take ever more diverging paths. Hence the Lotus Sūtra compares these two persons to venomous insects and vicious ghosts. Question: The eight negations are fully endowed with the two truths. If Hīnayāna persons know that phenomena arise and thereby attain conventional truth, why do you speak of loss? Answer: Conventional truth is production that is unproduced dependent origination; yet those of the Hīnayāna cling to it as production with intrinsic nature, and therefore they lose the conventional truth. If they even lose the conventional truth, how much more so the ultimate truth? Question: The followers of the Vaipulya study the Mahāyāna and illuminate that all phenomena are neither produced nor destroyed and are ultimately empty; they ought to have attained the eight negations. Why do you speak of loss? Answer: That the eight negations are unproduced is simply that production through causes and conditions is unproduced; it speaks of non-production without destroying production. Yet those of the Vaipulya cling to non-production and lose production; having lost production-as-unproduced, they also lose unproduced-as-production, thereby destroying both of the two truths. Question: For whom precisely did the Tathāgata appear in the world? And when Nāgārjuna subsequently arose, what errors did he further refute? Answer: Speaking generally, the Buddha appeared in the world precisely for all four persons. However, before the Buddha appeared in the world, there were only the first two persons; to refute these two persons, he preached the teaching of the five vehicles. Among these two persons, for those devoid of hearing and practicing unwholesome paths, he brought them to maturity through the wholesome roots of humans and devas; for those with the faculties for the three vehicles, he preached the teachings of the three vehicles. Although Nāgārjuna's appearance in the world was generally for all four persons, this treatise is directly intended for persons of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; hence it elucidates both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings, while treating the first two persons secondarily. Moreover, although the Buddha preached the teachings of the five vehicles, his intent lay in the one great causal condition; and although the four reliances elucidated both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings, their intent returns to the single ultimate, leading beings to awaken to the middle way and give rise to right contemplation. Next, to clarify the four persons of gain: as previously explained, there are four kinds of persons who contemplate the middle way. The middle way is precisely the meaning of the eight negations as neither produced nor destroyed: contemplating with lower wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a śrāvaka; contemplating with middling wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a pratyekabuddha; contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a bodhisattva; contemplating with supreme wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a Buddha. Bodhi is called wisdom; it means giving rise to contemplation while in the causal stage, thus constituting the four persons. This treatise combines the four persons into two: the first twenty-five chapters cause contemplation to arise while in the causal stage, attaining the bodhi of Buddhas and bodhisattvas; the latter two chapters cause persons of the two vehicles to give rise to contemplation while in the causal stage, attaining the bodhi of the two vehicles. Therefore, a later chapter says: "Previously having heard the Mahāyāna teachings, one enters the ultimate truth; now one wishes to hear the śrāvaka teachings to enter the ultimate truth." The ultimate truth is precisely the middle way; but awakening has shallowness and depth, just like the three beasts \[crossing the river\], thus forming four grades. Question: If the three vehicles equally contemplate the middle way and the persons of the three vehicles equally receive the eight negations, why does the sūtra text state: "For śrāvakas he preached the production and destruction of the twelve causal conditions, while for bodhisattvas he preached the twelve as unproduced and undestroyed"? Answer: Broadly explained, there are two kinds of śrāvakas: First, those who attain the emptiness of persons but do not attain the emptiness of phenomena. Because they do not attain the emptiness of phenomena, the twelve characteristics are produced for them; knowing there is no self, they enter the ultimate truth. The great beings (bodhisattvas) fully attain both emptinesses: not only is there no self, there are also no twelve \[links\], and thus they enter the ultimate truth; therefore, they differ from those of the two vehicles. Second, śrāvakas fully attain both emptinesses, but for the śrāvaka, the twelve exist first, and they must disintegrate them to make them empty before entering the ultimate truth. Bodhisattvas know that the twelve are originally unproduced from the outset and are now also undestroyed, and thus enter the emptiness of the ultimate truth. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains the two emptinesses of great and small: the śrāvaka analyzes and disintegrates persons and phenomena, and thus persons and phenomena are empty; the bodhisattva knows that the intrinsic nature of persons and phenomena is inherently empty. Although there is the difference between disintegrating phenomena and intrinsic nature, they equally elucidate the entry into the meaning of emptiness. Because they equally enter the meaning of emptiness, the three vehicles equally enter the ultimate truth. Because of disintegrating phenomena versus not disintegrating phenomena, the śrāvaka is termed the contemplation of production and destruction, while the bodhisattva is termed the contemplation of non-production and non-destruction. Question: For those who equally enter emptiness, is there any difference in the meaning of emptiness or not? Answer: This is fully explained in the Profound Meaning (Xuanyi); now I will explain it briefly in a single phrase. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The two vehicles are called mere emptiness, while bodhisattvas are called unobtainable emptiness. The two vehicles simply abide in emptiness, which is called solitary emptiness; great beings know that emptiness is also empty, which is called unobtainable emptiness." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also says: "The two vehicles attaining the two emptinesses is like the emptiness within a pore; great beings attaining the two emptinesses is like the emptiness of the ten directions." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.6) - [Next: 2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.8) - [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.2.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.7) · Pramāṇa