[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) › 3.17 # 中觀論疏 3.17 中觀論疏 3.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.17) 「復次萬物無生」下，第二周釋八不。生起如前。問：青目何所承而作兩周釋耶？答：青目見論主〈因緣品〉一周就理解八不，〈去來品〉一周就事釋八不，今影此意還作二周也。二周異義，上以具論，今更略敘之。前周約為人釋，此周顯法釋。前周為人者，無生一句破病已周、顯道已足，但為人受悟不周，故須具說八不。此周顯法者，直顯萬法是不生不滅等也。釋八不即為八。初為二：前總標總釋、次別標別釋。萬物無生，總標也。問：何故唱萬物無生？答：稟教之流安置無生義謬，今欲周正無生，故唱萬物不生。問：何人謬耶？答五義：一者小乘不得法空，謂無為無生、有為有生。又小乘人計有為無為異。《智度論》云「聲聞法中不說生死即是涅槃，唯大乘中說。」即是耳。今破此病，故云有為無為一切不生。二者昔有不空假義，謂性實法是空故不生耳，因緣假不空故有生。今破此病，故性之與假一切不生。三者心無之論，謂心法不生耳，外萬物有生。今破此病，故云萬物無生。初周約人辯無生，可是心無生；今明外物無生，故知心之與境一切物不生。四者空假名義，謂二諦異體，世諦自是生為體、真諦以無生為體，但不相離，故言即耳。今對此病，故云一切物即是不生，非是真不生也。五者真俗一體者終起二見，若聞有生，安世諦三假之中；若聞無生，即入真諦四絕之中。今泯其二見，若聞生即須知無生、聞無生即須知宛然生。故肇師云：「道遠乎哉？觸事而真。聖遠乎哉？體之即神。」「何以故」下，第二總釋無生也。乃舉「世間現見」者，上標萬物舉境也，今釋舉智也。凡有三義：一無生之言難信，故舉現釋之，令其易解。然論主見無生者，此是現見生者無生，既見生無生，即見無生生。見生無生是方便波若，見無生生是波若方便。外人不見生無生，亦不見無生生，故無二慧也。二者《智度論》云「諸論義師利智巧言，有能令無、無能令有。」恐龍樹同之實是有生而言無生，是故今明現見無生，非妄談也。三者稟教之流聞說無生，望崖不習，是故舉近世事即是無生，令取信為易習而行之。故云即目所見皆是無生，汝可諦觀察之。如《大品》云「菩提易得耳，以一切法無生即得菩提」也。問：為是波若眼故見不生、為是世間顛倒眼故見不生？答：釋此語始終凡有五轉。一者且開二轍：一者波若世間眼故見萬物無生、顛倒世間眼自見穀生，故以無生滅智照無生滅境、生滅智照生滅境，無生滅智不見生滅境、生滅智不見無生滅境。故師舊語云：「聖見凡所不見，不見凡所見。凡見聖所不見，不見聖所見。」第二轉意，稟教之流聞於此言，便起二見。是故今明波若之與世間更無有二，若見世間不生即名波若、見波若生便名世間，故波若世間更無二也。第三轉意，稟教之流聞向所說，便作一解同於外道，猶如一人亦父亦子；亦同地論師義，猶如一舍，若有相心取則成妄想之舍、若無相心取則畢竟空舍。是故今對此病，明萬物未曾是波若及以顛倒，亦何甞生與無生？約了悟名曰無生，於不了者目之為生。外道有一人兩望成父子，地論有一物兩觀成真妄，今不同此說也。第四轉意，稟教之流便謂，若約了不了故成波若之與世間，若然終有一物可從二性。今對此病，故明未曾有物及以不物，於物者為物、不物者為不物耳。第五轉意，境既如此，在心亦然，未曾心、未曾不心，心者為心、不心者為不心。故肇師云：「心生於有心，像出於有像。」肇又云：「聖人了達諸法於外無數、於內無心，彼已寂滅、浩然大均乃曰涅槃。」問：經中何處有世聞眼見語，而青目引之？答：《華嚴》云世間淨眼品，即是事也。 > From "Furthermore, the ten thousand things are unarisen" below is the second round explaining the eight negations. Its occurrence is as before. Question: On what authority does Piṅgala explain them in two rounds? Answer: Piṅgala saw that in the "Chapter on Conditions" the treatise master explained the eight negations in one round in terms of principle, and in the "Chapter on Going and Coming" he explained the eight negations in one round in terms of phenomena; now, mirroring this intention, he also produces two rounds. The different meanings of the two rounds have been fully discussed above; now they are briefly stated again. The prior round explained them with reference to persons; this round explains them by revealing phenomena. That the prior round was for persons means that the single phrase "non-arising" already comprehensively refuted errors and sufficiently revealed the Way, but because persons' acceptance and awakening were not comprehensive, it was necessary to state the eight negations in full. That this round reveals phenomena means that it directly reveals that the ten thousand phenomena are without arising, without ceasing, and so forth. Explaining the eight negations comprises eight \[sections\]. The first has two parts: first, a general indication and general explanation; second, distinct indications and distinct explanations. "The ten thousand things are unarisen" is the general indication. Question: Why proclaim that the ten thousand things are unarisen? Answer: Those who receive the teachings establish the meaning of non-arising erroneously; now, wishing to make non-arising comprehensive and correct, he therefore proclaims that the ten thousand things are unarisen. Question: Who is in error? Answer: Five doctrines. First, the Hīnayāna does not attain the emptiness of phenomena, asserting that the unconditioned is unarisen while the conditioned is arisen. Furthermore, Hīnayāna adherents posit that conditioned and unconditioned are different. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "In the Śrāvaka teachings it is not said that saṃsāra is just nirvāṇa; it is only said in the Mahāyāna." This is precisely it. Now, refuting this error, we say that conditioned and unconditioned are all unarisen. Second, formerly there was the doctrine of the non-empty provisional, asserting that intrinsic, real phenomena are empty and therefore unarisen, whereas the provisional of causes and conditions is not empty and therefore has arising. Now, refuting this error, both intrinsic nature and the provisional are entirely unarisen. Third is the treatise on the non-existence of mind, which asserts that mental phenomena are unarisen, while external ten thousand things have arising. Now, refuting this error, we say that the ten thousand things are unarisen. The first round discerned non-arising with reference to persons, which could allow for mind being unarisen; now, clarifying that external things are unarisen, we know that both mind and object—all things—are unarisen. Fourth is the doctrine of empty provisional designations, which asserts that the two truths have different essences: conventional truth has arising as its essence, while ultimate truth has non-arising as its essence; they are merely not separate, and therefore are called identical. Now, addressing this error, we say that all things are themselves non-arising, not that the ultimate is unarisen. Fifth, those who take ultimate and conventional to be of one essence end up giving rise to two views: hearing of arising, they place it within the three provisionals of conventional truth; hearing of non-arising, they enter into the four terminations of ultimate truth. Now we obliterate their two views: hearing of arising, one must immediately know non-arising; hearing of non-arising, one must immediately know apparent arising. Therefore Master Sengzhao said: "Is the Way far away? Touch things and it is true. Is the sage far away? Embody him and you are spiritual." From "Why?" below is the second part, the general explanation of non-arising. As for citing "manifestly seen in the world": the indication of the ten thousand things above cited the object; the present explanation cites wisdom. There are altogether three meanings: First, words of non-arising are difficult to believe, so citing the manifest explains it, causing them to understand easily. However, when the treatise master sees non-arising, this is manifestly seeing that what is arisen is unarisen; having seen that the arisen is unarisen, he immediately sees that the unarisen is arisen. Seeing that the arisen is unarisen is expedient prajñā; seeing that the unarisen is arisen is the expedient of prajñā. Non-Buddhists do not see that the arisen is unarisen, nor do they see that the unarisen is arisen; thus they lack the two wisdoms. Second, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Debaters with sharp wisdom and clever words can make what exists into nothing, and make what is nothing into existence." Fearing that Nāgārjuna would be assimilated to them as actually holding that there is arising while asserting non-arising, therefore he now clarifies that non-arising is manifestly seen, not empty talk. Third, those who receive the teachings, upon hearing of non-arising, gaze at the cliff and do not practice; therefore citing immediate worldly matters as being just non-arising makes them accept it with faith as easy to practice and carry out. Hence it says that what is seen before one's eyes is all unarisen; you should examine it attentively. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "Bodhi is easily attained, because all phenomena are unarisen, bodhi is attained." Question: Is it through the eye of prajñā that one sees non-arising, or is it through the worldly, inverted eye that one sees non-arising? Answer: In explaining these words, from beginning to end there are five turns. First, tentatively opening two paths: first, through the eye of worldly prajñā one sees that the ten thousand things are unarisen; through the inverted worldly eye one naturally sees the grain arise. Thus, with wisdom of neither arising nor ceasing one illuminates the object that is neither arising nor ceasing; with wisdom of arising and ceasing one illuminates the object of arising and ceasing. The wisdom of neither arising nor ceasing does not see the object of arising and ceasing; the wisdom of arising and ceasing does not see the object of neither arising nor ceasing. Therefore the old saying of the masters says: "The sage sees what ordinary people do not see, and does not see what ordinary people see. Ordinary people see what the sage does not see, and do not see what the sage sees." In the meaning of the second turn: those who receive the teachings, hearing these words, then give rise to two views. Therefore we now clarify that prajñā and the worldly are by no means two: if one sees that the worldly is unarisen, it is named prajñā; if one sees that prajñā arises, it is then named worldly. Thus prajñā and the worldly are by no means two. In the meaning of the third turn: those who receive the teachings, hearing what was just said, then form a single interpretation identical to non-Buddhists, like one person being both father and son; it is also identical to the doctrine of the Dilun masters, like a single house: if grasped with a mind possessing marks, it becomes a house of false conceptualization; if grasped with a markless mind, it is an ultimately empty house. Therefore, now addressing this error, we clarify that the ten thousand things have never been prajñā or inverted; how have they ever been arisen or unarisen? In terms of full awakening it is called unarisen; for the unawakened it is designated as arisen. Non-Buddhists have one person viewed from two perspectives becoming father and son; the Dilun has one thing viewed in two ways becoming true and false. We do not agree with such assertions now. In the meaning of the fourth turn: those who receive the teachings then claim that if prajñā and the worldly are formed in terms of awakening and non-awakening, if so, in the end there must be a single thing that can follow two natures. Now, addressing this error, we therefore clarify that there has never been a thing or a non-thing; to those who view it as a thing it is a thing, and to those who view it as a non-thing it is a non-thing. In the meaning of the fifth turn: the object being so, it is likewise so in the mind—never mind, never non-mind; to those who view it as mind it is mind, and to those who view it as non-mind it is non-mind. Therefore Master Sengzhao said: "Mind arises from having mind; forms emerge from having form." Sengzhao also said: "The sage thoroughly penetrates all phenomena as having no number externally and no mind internally; when that is already tranquil and vast impartiality prevails, this is called nirvāṇa." Question: Where in the sūtras is there the phrase "seen by the worldly eye" that Piṅgala cites? Answer: The Avataṃsaka speaks of the chapter on "The Pure Eye of the World"; that is the matter. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.16) - [Next: 3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.18) - [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.3.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.17) · Pramāṇa