中觀論疏 3.28

3.28

「答曰果為從緣生為從非緣生」下，第三破四緣生明無生義。問：為但破四緣生明無生、為明四緣生即是無生？答：具有二義。阿毘曇人不得法空，不知諸法無生，謂有定性之生，此是不知第一義諦。既不得第一義，亦不知世諦，故毘曇執生出二諦外。今破無此定性之生，故云無生。如《智度論》云「問曰：欲學四緣應學毘曇，云何乃學波若？」論主答云「初學毘曇似如可解，轉久推求即成邪見，是故須學波若。」又若諸法從四緣生，誰復生四緣？若更有所從，是則無窮。若無所從而自生者，法亦如是。以此推之，故不應學毘曇也。又破諸小乘得法空義，雖知無生，不知四緣本自無生，拆生而明無生，故今破之。二者今申假名四緣生義，良由諸法從四緣生，故是無生法。若定實即不假緣，既其假緣即無性，無性故無生。又他若聞四緣即言有生、若聞無生即無四緣，今須反之，若聞四緣即知無生，亦聞真諦即須知有生。問：諸法既空，云何諸法從四緣生？答：如水中月雖空，要從月從水生。雖從此二生，而實無生。一切法亦爾也。

From "Answer: Does the fruit arise from conditions, or does it arise from non-conditions?" onward is the third part, which refutes production from the four conditions and clarifies the meaning of non-production. Question: Does this solely refute production from the four conditions to clarify non-production, or does it clarify that production from the four conditions is itself non-production? Answer: It has both meanings. The Abhidharmikas, not grasping the emptiness of dharmas and not knowing the non-production of all dharmas, claim there is production of a fixed intrinsic nature; this is a failure to know ultimate truth. Since they do not grasp the ultimate truth, neither do they know conventional truth; hence the Abhidharma's clinging to production falls outside the two truths. Now, refuting the nonexistence of this production of a fixed intrinsic nature is why it is called 'non-production.' As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Question: If one wishes to study the four conditions, one should study the Abhidharma; why instead study prajñā? The treatise master answers: When first studying the Abhidharma, it seems comprehensible, but as one investigates it longer, it turns into wrong views; therefore one must study prajñā.' Furthermore, if all dharmas arise from the four conditions, what then produces the four conditions? If they depend on something further, that leads to infinite regress. If they arise spontaneously without depending on anything, dharmas would likewise [arise without cause]. Deducing from this, one should not study the Abhidharma. Furthermore, it refutes the Hīnayāna understanding of the emptiness of dharmas: although they know non-production, they do not know that the four conditions are originally non-produced in themselves, but rather analyze production to explain non-production; hence it is now refuted. Second, it now elucidates the meaning of provisional-designation production through the four conditions: precisely because all dharmas arise from the four conditions, they are non-produced dharmas. If they were fixed and real, they would not depend on conditions; since they depend on conditions, they lack intrinsic nature, and lacking intrinsic nature, they are non-produced. Furthermore, when others hear of the four conditions, they assert that there is production, and when they hear of non-production, they assert that there are no four conditions. Now we must overturn this: if one hears of the four conditions, one must know non-production; likewise, hearing of ultimate truth, one must know that there is [provisional] production. Question: Since all dharmas are empty, how do all dharmas arise from the four conditions? Answer: Just as the moon in the water, though empty, necessarily arises from the moon and from the water—though it arises from these two, in reality there is no production. All dharmas are also like this.