中觀論疏 3.30

3.30

長行為二：一者釋此偈本、二者釋前章門偈。釋此偈本為二：第一總釋、第二據事別釋。總釋之中，前釋上半緣無定性破也。「諸緣無決定」者，標無定也。「何以故」下，釋無定也。「緣成由於果」，結無定也。「以果後緣前故」者，有人言：由果有緣則果墮在緣前、緣墮在果後。有人言：緣成由果，此是由果有緣，故緣無定性則緣不定前。果後緣前故，此是由緣故果，果無定性，緣不定後。今並不然。自前已來釋上半竟，從此文去方釋下半也。就釋下半中，此文即是牒外人義。若如上半所明，緣得成由自於果，則緣不在前、果不居後。汝今果遂居後、緣遂在前，所以牒之也。「若未有果何得名為緣」者，正舉下半破之。若果遂在後、緣自在前，既未有果，何得名為緣？故上半得成緣而失緣前果後。下半若得緣前果後，則緣成非緣。故進退屈也。「如瓶」下，第二周據事別釋。亦前釋上半；「若瓶未生時」者，釋下半也。「是故果不從緣生」者，此第二結此偈意，即釋前章門偈。結此偈意者，上來二周責緣成非緣，是故果不得從緣生，所以前章云「果為從緣生」，義則不成也，何況非緣者。所以有此文來，為欲釋疑。疑云：章門雙定緣非緣，今何故但破不從緣生、不破從非緣生？是故釋云：緣尚不生，何況非緣。無別非緣，但責外人果未生時不名緣，故緣成非緣。緣尚不生，非緣豈生？即顯此偈不破非緣意也。「果前於緣中」下，第二偈次破緣，釋章門偈下半。就偈為二：上半牒而呵、下半責而難。果前於緣中者，牒也。「有無俱不可」者，非呵也。不可，凡有五義：一者本安有無置緣非緣中耳，緣非緣既不生果，安有無置何處耶？二者上緣非緣既不可，今有無亦不可。三者為外人密救前破故生。上破云：得緣名即失前後，得前後即失緣名。外救云：得緣名亦不失前後，未有果時而緣中既有果理。待於理果，故得現緣之名，即是現緣待當果。此是當現待，亦是因果相待，是故二義俱成。為此一救，故更研緣中之果為有為無，即是破其現因當果相待之義，故二偈相成也。四者有無俱壞因果道理、不稱可因果道理，故云不可。五者不稱可三寶，故云不可。如《涅槃》云「若言因中有果，當知是人謗佛法僧。若言無果、亦有亦無、非有非無，亦謗三寶也。」「前無為誰緣」者，責也。既其無果，不得稱為果緣。又不生非果，復不得名為非果之緣。此之一責，無言可對。「前有何用緣」者，難也。若未有果可須緣，辨果已有，竟何用緣耶？立無果家得緣用而失緣名、立有果家得緣名而失緣用，是以二家俱不可。釋上半也。破地論人云：本有阿梨耶者，何用藉十地緣修耶？破成實者，本有涅槃，何用修萬行耶？若言本有於當者，當與空未異耶？若異空，何用緣？未異空，何能辨耶？

The prose section consists of two parts: first, explaining this base verse, and second, explaining the preceding chapter-opening verse. The explanation of this base verse consists of two parts: first, a general explanation, and second, a specific explanation based on concrete matters. Within the general explanation, the first part explains the first half of the verse, which refutes [the idea] that conditions have a fixed nature.

Regarding the statement 'conditions are not determinately fixed': this indicates the lack of fixity.
From 'Why is this?' downward: this explains the lack of fixity.
'Conditions are established by relying on the effect': this concludes the lack of fixity.
Regarding 'Because the effect comes after and the conditions come before': someone says, 'Because there are conditions due to the effect, the effect falls before the conditions, and the conditions fall after the effect.' Another says, 'Conditions are established by relying on the effect: this means that because there are conditions due to the effect, conditions lack a fixed nature and thus conditions are not determinately prior. Because the effect comes after and the conditions come before: this means that the effect is due to conditions; the effect lacks a fixed nature, so conditions are not determinately posterior.'

Now, neither is correct. All of the preceding has concluded the explanation of the first half of the verse; from this text onward, the second half of the verse is explained. In explaining the second half, this text takes up the opponent's position: if, as explained in the first half, conditions come to be established entirely by relying on the effect, then conditions would not be prior and the effect would not be posterior. You now claim that the effect is indeed posterior and conditions are indeed prior, which is why it is cited.

Regarding 'If there is not yet an effect, how can they be named conditions?': this directly adduces the second half of the verse to refute it. If the effect is indeed posterior and conditions are naturally prior, since there is not yet an effect, how can they be named conditions? Therefore, if the first half succeeds in establishing conditions, it loses the order of conditions being prior and the effect being posterior; if the second half secures conditions being prior and the effect being posterior, then conditions turn into non-conditions. Thus, whether advancing or retreating, they are refuted.

From 'Just as with a vase' downward: this is the second cycle, a specific explanation based on concrete matters. This also first explains the first half; 'When the vase is not yet produced' explains the second half.

Regarding 'Therefore the effect is not produced from conditions': this second part concludes the meaning of this verse, which is to explain the preceding chapter-opening verse. Concluding the meaning of this verse means: through the two cycles above, conditions were challenged and shown to become non-conditions; therefore, the effect cannot be produced from conditions. Thus, the statement in the preceding chapter, 'is the effect produced from conditions?', cannot be established—how much less [from] non-conditions!

The reason this text appears is to resolve a doubt. The doubt asks: 'The chapter-opening verse posited both conditions and non-conditions; why does it now only refute production from conditions and not refute production from non-conditions?' Therefore it is explained: if even conditions do not produce, how much less non-conditions! There are no separate non-conditions; it simply challenges the opponent that when the effect has not yet arisen, they cannot be called conditions, so conditions turn into non-conditions. If even conditions do not produce, how could non-conditions produce? This reveals the intention of this verse not refuting non-conditions.

From 'Prior to [its arising], the effect in the conditions' downward: the second verse next refutes conditions, explaining the second half of the chapter-opening verse. As for the verse, it consists of two parts: the first half cites and scolds, while the second half challenges and raises a dilemma. 'Prior to [its arising], the effect in the conditions' is the citation. 'Both existence and non-existence are unacceptable' is the scolding critique.

'Unacceptable' has five meanings in all:
First, originally existence and non-existence were situated within conditions and non-conditions; since conditions and non-conditions do not produce an effect, where could existence and non-existence be placed?
Second, just as conditions and non-conditions above were unacceptable, now existence and non-existence are likewise unacceptable.
Third, this arises because the opponent subtly attempts to rescue their position from the prior refutation. The prior refutation stated: 'If you obtain the name