中觀論疏 3.19

3.19

「問曰汝雖釋不生」，此是第二章論主自釋八不。問：青目釋與論主釋此有何異？答：大意是同，略有三異。一者青目具釋八不，論主但釋一不。二者注人生起八不次第，論主直釋而已。三者青目次第釋，論主括始領終。〈因緣〉一品明無生，釋八不之始。〈去來〉一品明無去，解八不之終。此中前問、後答。問意有兩：一結前、二生後。注人所以作此問答者，凡有三義：一者恐子本不分，後人便謂偈與長行並是龍樹自作，欲分令異故作此問。二者無生理深，恐不中詣，故注人自謙仰推龍樹。三者羅睺羅法師是龍樹同時人，釋八不乃作常樂我淨四德明之；今青目據破病而釋，今欲引龍樹證同，故生此問。又云：恐後不信注者之言，引龍樹證。汝前雖破生明無生，論主意何必然耶？今明龍樹亦作此說，即我言可信。

"[The opponent] asks: 'Although you have explained non-arising...'" This is the second section, where the author of the treatise himself explains the eight negations. Question: What is the difference between Piṅgala's explanation and that of the treatise master? Answer: The main intent is identical; briefly, there are three differences. First, Piṅgala explains all eight negations in full, whereas the treatise master explains only one negation. Second, the commentator sets forth the sequence of arising for the eight negations, whereas the treatise master directly explains them without more. Third, Piṅgala explains them successively, whereas the treatise master encompasses the beginning and comprehends the end: Chapter [1] on "Conditions" explains non-arising, explaining the beginning of the eight negations; Chapter [2] on "Going and Coming" explains non-going, interpreting the end of the eight negations. Herein, first comes the question and then the answer. The intent of the question is twofold: first, to conclude what preceded; second, to introduce what follows. For the commentator to frame this question-and-answer has three reasons in all: First, fearing that text and commentary would not be distinguished and later people would suppose that both the verse and the prose were composed by Nāgārjuna himself; to distinguish them, he framed this question. Second, the principle of non-arising is profound, and fearing he had not hit the mark, the commentator modestly deferred upward to Nāgārjuna. Third, Dharma Master Rāhula was a contemporary of Nāgārjuna and explained the eight negations in terms of the four virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity; now Piṅgala explains them based on refuting errors, and wishing to cite Nāgārjuna as confirming accord, he raised this question. It is also said: fearing that later people would not believe the commentator's words, he cites Nāgārjuna as evidence: "Although you previously refuted arising and explained non-arising, how is it necessarily the treatise master's intent?" Now showing that Nāgārjuna also makes this statement, my words are indeed trustworthy.