中觀論疏 3.35

3.35

「緣緣者」，第三破緣緣。今先敘破緣緣之意。無始來常有此心，即有能緣、所緣。《淨名經》云「心有攀緣，即是病本。」何所攀緣？謂之三界。云何斷攀緣？謂無所得。今求緣緣不可得，即是斷眾生病本，令得解脫也。前立、次破。解緣緣有五。一云：心是能緣、境是所緣，心境合說故名緣緣。二解云：心是能緣，復緣前境，故心名緣緣。第三解云：前境是緣、能生心緣，緣能生緣，故名緣緣，從境受名。四解云：緣緣者，是心緣之緣，即是果也；萬法為心緣作緣，從果受名，故云緣緣。根本集阿毘曇師作此釋。何以知然？《大品》云「因、次第、緣、增上」，而次第及增上既是果，則知緣緣亦是果，故從果受名。即此論云「無相無緣」。無緣是無能緣，無相明無所緣，故知以心為能緣，萬法為能緣之心作緣，故云緣緣。五解云：通別兩舉。所言緣者，是生心之緣，謂別緣也。此緣復是四緣中之一緣，是通緣也。故通別兩舉，名為緣緣也。偈破中，上半舉佛說實相；下半明無緣緣，呵外人也。問：前破兩緣，與今破何異？答：前是縱破，今是奪破。奪破者，明實相法中無此緣緣，諸法無性故無此增上緣。上縱破者，縱有因緣，為有為無？縱有次第，為滅不滅？又前是就緣假，就彼外情求於因緣及以次第；今是對緣假，以佛正法對破邪也。問：前破二緣何故曲碎窮之，今破二緣但總非耶？答：本立四緣，兩緣既壞，後二易折，故但非之。又且前二緣於義親密，故委悉破之；後二疎慢，故但總非也。又破因緣故無境、破次第緣是破心，既無心境，云何有緣緣？今縱妄情言有，故破之易折也。又前後二門相成。上明既不得前滅後生，云何得緣境耶？即以前門成後；今明既不得緣境，云何得生滅耶？即以後門成前。又各逐義便，彼既立心前滅後生，宜一一就三世中責之；今立能緣所緣，故引實相畢竟空蕩之。問：破次第緣與破緣緣云何廣狹？答：常住佛智亦緣境而非生滅，故緣緣廣也。問：何物是緣緣耶？答：凡夫六識緣於六塵，聖人真俗兩慧緣一切境，並是緣緣義。「如諸佛所說」下，第二破緣緣，上半牒正、下半破邪。「真實微妙法」者，此法絕於境智，以絕境故無境可緣，絕於智故無有能緣。今引五事來證釋之。一者《華嚴》云「正法性遠離，一切言語道，一切趣非趣，悉皆寂滅性。」豈有能緣所緣？二《智度論》釋〈集散品〉云「緣是一邊、觀是一邊，離是二邊，名為中道」也。三影法師云：「夫萬化非無宗，而宗者無相」，此明無境。「虛宗非無契。而契之者無心」，此明無智。故內外並冥、緣觀俱寂，總無境智也。四肇師云：「法無有無之相」，此明無境。「聖無有無之知」，此辨無心。「無數於外、無心於內」，總結無境智。五攝嶺大師云：「緣盡於觀、觀盡於緣。」緣盡於觀者，凡夫二乘有所得大乘，此諸緣盡於正觀之內。以正觀既生，如此之緣即不生，故云緣盡於觀。在緣既盡，正觀便息，故名觀盡於緣。非緣非觀，不知何以美之，強名為中、強稱為觀。問：若無能緣所緣是實相者，今論主稟二諦教發生二智，則境是能生、智是所生，智為能照、境是所照，應非真實也。答：作如此解境智能所者亦被破。今明論主因緣境智，境雖生而無發、智雖照而無知，此境智即是非境智，故不被破。問：現有能緣所緣，云何言無緣緣耶？答：既言能所則不所，既言所能則非能，以能所是因緣，因緣即寂滅，故知無能所也。

Regarding "the objective condition (ālambana-pratyaya)," this is third, refuting the objective condition. First it is established, and next refuted. To begin with, the intention of refuting the objective condition is stated: From beginningless time there has always been this mind, and hence there have been the grasping subject (ālambaka) and the grasped object (ālambana). The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "For the mind to have grasping conditions is itself the root of affliction." What does it grasp? It refers to the three realms. How does one cut off grasping conditions? It means [realizing] non-acquisition. Now, to seek the objective condition and find it unfindable is precisely to cut off the root of sentient beings' affliction, enabling them to attain liberation. First it is established, and next refuted. There are five explanations of the objective condition: The first says: The mind is the grasper and the object is the grasped; mind and object spoken of together are called the objective condition. The second explanation says: The mind is the grasper, and it further takes the objective field before it as condition; hence the mind is called the objective condition. The third explanation says: The objective field before it is a condition, capable of generating the mental condition; because a condition can generate a condition, it is called the objective condition, taking its name from the objective field. The fourth explanation says: The objective condition is the condition of the mind's grasping, which is the fruit; myriad dharmas serve as conditions for the mind's grasping, taking its name from the fruit, hence it is called the objective condition. The masters who compiled the fundamental Abhidharma made this interpretation. How is this known? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: "cause, immediately preceding, objective, and dominant [conditions]"; and since the immediately preceding and dominant are fruits, we know that the objective condition is also a fruit, hence taking its name from the fruit. Thus this treatise states: "signless and non-grasping." Non-grasping means being without a grasper, and signless clarifies being without a grasped object; hence we know that with mind as the grasper, myriad dharmas serve as conditions for the grasping mind, and so it is called the objective condition. The fifth explanation says: Both the general and the specific are cited together. That which is called "condition" is the condition that generates the mind, meaning the specific condition. This condition is also one condition among the four conditions, which is the general condition. Thus both the general and the specific are cited together, termed the objective condition. In the refutation by the verse, the first half presents the real mark taught by the Buddha; the second half clarifies that there is no objective condition, rebuking the outsiders. Question: What is the difference between the previous refutations of the two conditions and this present refutation? Answer: The previous were refutations by concession; the present is a direct refutation. A direct refutation clarifies that within the dharma of the real mark there is no such objective condition, and because dharmas have no intrinsic nature, there is no such dominant condition. The concessions above were: conceded that there are causes and conditions, are they existent or non-existent? Conceded that there is an immediately preceding [condition], is it ceased or unceased? Furthermore, the previous was reliant on conditional designation, seeking causes, conditions, and sequence in the external conceptions of the opponents; the present directly confronts conditions with designation, using the Buddha's correct Dharma to confront and refute heterodoxy. Question: Why were the first two conditions minutely and exhaustively investigated, while the latter two conditions are only generally negated? Answer: Originally four conditions were established; since two conditions have already been destroyed, the latter two are easy to break down, hence they are only negated. Furthermore, the first two conditions are intimate in meaning, hence they were refuted in exhaustive detail; the latter two are remote and general, hence only generally negated. Furthermore, because of refuting causes and conditions there is no objective field, and refuting the immediately preceding condition refutes the mind; since there is neither mind nor objective field, how could there be an objective condition? Now, conceding deluded sentiments that say it exists, refuting it is therefore easy to break down. Moreover, the preceding and succeeding approaches mutually establish each other. Above it was clarified that since [mind] cannot cease prior and arise after, how could it grasp an objective field? Thus the former approach establishes the latter. Now it is clarified that since it cannot grasp an objective field, how could there be arising and ceasing? Thus the latter approach establishes the former. Moreover, each follows what is appropriate to the meaning: since they established that mind ceases prior and arises after, it was suitable to examine it one by one within the three periods of time; now, since they establish grasper and grasped, the real mark is cited as ultimate emptiness to clear it away. Question: Regarding the refutation of the immediately preceding condition and the refutation of the objective condition, which is broader and which narrower? Answer: The permanently abiding Buddha-wisdom also grasps the objective field without arising and ceasing; therefore the objective condition is broader. Question: What kind of thing is the objective condition? Answer: The six consciousnesses of ordinary people grasping the six dust-fields, and the two wisdoms—ultimate and conventional—of the sage grasping all objective fields, are all the meaning of the objective condition. From "As taught by the Buddhas" downward is the second part, the refutation of the objective condition; the first half cites the correct, and the second half refutes the heterodox. "The real and subtle Dharma": this Dharma transcends both objective field and wisdom. Because it transcends the objective field, there is no field to be grasped; because it transcends wisdom, there is no grasper. Five instances are now cited to corroborate and explain it. First, the Avataṃsaka states: "The nature of the true Dharma is far removed / From all paths of speech; / All destinies and non-destinies / Are completely of the nature of quiescence." How could there be grasper and grasped? Second, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, commenting on the "Chapter on Gathering and Dispersal," states: "The grasped condition is one extreme, and contemplation is one extreme; departing from these two extremes is called the middle way." Third, Dharma Master Tanying said: "Now, the myriad transformations are not without a source, but the source is signless"—this clarifies that there is no objective field. "The empty source is not without accord, but that which accords with it is mindless"—this clarifies that there is no wisdom. Therefore internal and external are both dark, grasping condition and contemplation are both quiescent, and in all there is neither field nor wisdom. Fourth, Master Sengzhao said: "Dharmas have no marks of existence or non-existence"—this clarifies that there is no objective field. "The sage has no knowledge of existence or non-existence"—this distinguishes that there is no mind. "Without reckoning externally, without mind internally"—this summarizes the absence of field and wisdom. Fifth, the Great Master of Shelian said: "The condition is exhausted in contemplation; contemplation is exhausted in the condition." "The condition is exhausted in contemplation" means that the various conditions of ordinary people, the two vehicles, and Mahāyāna with grasping, are all exhausted within correct contemplation. Since correct contemplation has arisen, such conditions do not arise; hence it is said that the condition is exhausted in contemplation. When the conditions are already exhausted, correct contemplation then subsides; hence it is called contemplation exhausted in the condition. Neither condition nor contemplation: not knowing how to praise it, it is forcibly designated as the middle, and forcibly called contemplation. Question: If the absence of grasper and grasped is the real mark, then now as the author of the treatise receives the teaching of the two truths and generates the two wisdoms, the objective field is the generator and wisdom is what is generated; wisdom is the illuminator and the objective field is what is illuminated—should this not be unreal? Answer: Making such an interpretation of grasper and grasped in field and wisdom is also refuted. Now we clarify that for the author of the treatise, field and wisdom are dependently originated: though the field arises, there is no manifestation; though wisdom illuminates, there is no knowing. This field and wisdom are precisely non-field and non-wisdom, and therefore are not refuted. Question: Since grasper and grasped manifestly exist, why say that there is no objective condition? Answer: Since one says "grasper," it is not the grasped; since one says "grasped," it is not the grasper. Because grasper and grasped are dependently originated, and dependent origination is quiescence, we therefore know there is neither grasper nor grasped.