[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) › 3.13 # 中觀論疏 3.13 中觀論疏 3.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.13) 「有人不受不生不滅」者，此第二釋為成義。論主破諸法生滅明無生滅，外人聞此便不肯受。論主破諸法斷常明不斷不常，外人聞之則便生信。為成此人無生信，是故說六。所以然者，彼謂諸法有因滅果生，聞說不生不滅，即破其因果成闡提邪見，是故不受。若聞因滅故不常、果續故不斷，不失因果，是故生信。此人謂不生不滅與不斷不常異，故作此計也。問：何人作此計耶？答有二種人作如此計：一者僧佉、衛世乃至若提子等立有因果義，聞說不生不滅，則謂無復因果，是故不受。若言因果相續不斷不常，則不失因果，所以生信。二者正是上九種論師及五百部義，《智度論》云「五百部聞畢竟空如刀傷心」，畢竟空即是不生不滅，是故不受。若聞因果不常不斷，是故生信。預是得眾生空、不得法空，並作斯執。曇影法師述羅什言，亦作此解。彼云：「不生則無法可寄、不常則法體猶存，故受無生難、信不常易也。」但須作此一釋。更有異解者，並不依文義，是人情自推斥耳。「若深求不常不斷即是不生不滅」者，前句出外人謂異。汝謂不生滅異不常不斷，是故信一不信一耳。今不常即是不生，既信不常，即應信不生；若不信不生，亦不信不常也。有三：初標即、次釋即、後結即。所以云深求者，明外人所以謂異者，以不深求故也；若深求之，則知不異。「何以故法若實有則不應無」者，次釋即也。此釋意明所不無異，故能不無別。初句將滅配斷。法若實有不可令無；而前是有、後遂無者，當知是斷。前有今無即斷，前有今無即是滅；若斷即滅，當知不斷即是不滅。「若前有性」者，此將生配常。前有生性，當知此生即是於常，故知不常即是不生。此中以體為性，下云「自性即是自體」。 > Regarding "Some do not accept non-arising and non-perishing": this is the second \[part\], explaining the meaning of "to establish". The author of the treatise refuted the arising and perishing of phenomena to clarify non-arising and non-perishing; outsiders, hearing this, are unwilling to accept it. The author of the treatise refuted the annihilation and permanence of phenomena to clarify non-annihilation and non-permanence; outsiders, hearing this, then give rise to faith. To establish this person's faith in non-arising, he therefore speaks of the six. Why is this? They think phenomena involve causes perishing and effects arising; hearing non-arising and non-perishing spoken, it destroys their cause and effect, leading to the wrong view of an icchantika, hence they do not accept it. If they hear that because causes perish there is non-permanence, and because effects continue there is non-annihilation, cause and effect are not lost, and therefore they give rise to faith. This person believes non-arising and non-perishing are different from non-annihilation and non-permanence, and therefore forms this imputation. Question: What kind of person forms this imputation? Answer: There are two kinds of people who form this imputation: First, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, down to the Nirgrantha, who establish the meaning of cause and effect; hearing non-arising and non-perishing spoken, they think there are no longer causes and effects, hence they do not accept it. If one says that cause and effect continue in succession without annihilation and without permanence, then cause and effect are not lost, so they give rise to faith. Second, it is precisely the nine kinds of treatise masters above and the meanings of the five hundred schools; the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "When the five hundred schools hear of ultimate emptiness, it is like a sword piercing their hearts." Ultimate emptiness is precisely non-arising and non-perishing, hence they do not accept it. If they hear of cause and effect as non-permanent and non-annihilated, they therefore give rise to faith. All those who attained the emptiness of sentient beings but did not attain the emptiness of phenomena formed this attachment. Master Tanying, relating Kumārajīva's words, also made this explanation. He said, "Under non-arising there is no phenomenon to rely upon; under non-permanence the substance of phenomena still remains. Hence accepting non-arising is difficult, but believing non-permanence is easy." One must only provide this one explanation. If there are other interpretations, they do not follow the meaning of the text, but are merely human opinions speculating and deducing on their own. Regarding "If one deeply investigates, non-permanence and non-annihilation are precisely non-arising and non-perishing": the preceding clause brings out the outsider's assumption of difference. You think non-arising and non-perishing are different from non-permanence and non-annihilation, and therefore believe the one and do not believe the other. Now, non-permanence is precisely non-arising; since you believe non-permanence, you ought to believe non-arising; if you do not believe non-arising, neither do you believe non-permanence. There are three parts: first, stating the identity; second, explaining the identity; third, concluding the identity. Why say "deeply investigates"? It clarifies that the reason the outsider thinks they are different is that he does not deeply investigate; if he deeply investigates them, he will know they are not different. Regarding "Why? If a phenomenon were real, it should not be non-existent": next is explaining the identity. This explanation intends to clarify that what is negated does not differ, so what negates has no distinction. The initial phrase matches perishing with annihilation. If a phenomenon were real, it could not be made non-existent; but if it was previously existent and subsequently non-existent, one should know this is annihilation. Previously existent and now non-existent is annihilation; previously existent and now non-existent is perishing. If annihilation is perishing, one should know non-annihilation is precisely non-perishing. Regarding "If it previously had intrinsic nature": this matches arising with permanence. If it previously had a nature of arising, one should know this arising is precisely permanence; hence we know non-permanence is precisely non-arising. Here, "substance" is taken as "nature"; as it says below, "intrinsic nature is precisely intrinsic substance". > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.12) - [Next: 3.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.14) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.3.13) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [中論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.madhyamaka.mmk!pingala*zh-kumarajiva.1.14) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.13) · Pramāṇa