[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) › 3.5 # 中觀論疏 3.5 中觀論疏 3.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.5) 「不生者」下，第二次釋初偈，即是釋八不文。此文有二義故來：一者釋上總破一切法。以無生無滅故，餘六事亦無，則二不遍破一切法，況復八不耶。二為釋八不文故來。就文為二周解釋。山中舊云：前周就第一義門釋，後周就世諦門釋。所以就二諦釋者，諸佛說法常依二諦。八不既是佛說，亦是二諦，故就二諦門釋也。前釋第一義、後釋世諦者，第一義為本、世諦為末，故前釋其本、次釋其末也。問：何以知前為第一義、後為世諦？答：後云「世間現見故」，則知是世諦。後既是世諦，則知前是第一義諦。山中大學士道安法師處，余年十九聽之。彼人云：「前第一義諦，借生以顯無生，故舉諸論師生以明無生。次世諦則借無生以顯生，故云後次萬物無生也。舉萬物無生，欲顯成因緣生也。」問：上云真諦破假生、俗諦破實生。若爾，前破諸論義師計生，應是破假生，後方是破實生也。答：真諦則假實俱絕、具破二生，諸論師則假實俱立，故破諸論師計生則是明真諦中道也。初既假實雙破，後則但破於實義，亦無失也。師又云：「諸論師所計生，於如來即是第一義。如經云『一切世諦，若於如來即第一義諦。』」又二周釋八不，同破一切有所得人顛倒定執、同申佛二諦中道。但初周總釋，約為三根人作四對釋之；後周別據一現事以解釋之，所以為異也。又初周直釋，後周證釋。證釋者，外人聞初釋不生而不信受，故舉即目眼之事以顯釋之，故是證釋也。又初周直明即事不生，次周明本來不生。故後文據劫初明不生及以不來出等。興皇有學士云：初周破諸論師實生明不生，就世諦門釋；次周始得從性起假，息假明於真諦，故後就真諦門釋。就初作四對釋之，即為四別。初對為二：前正釋不生不滅、次明攝法。就初文二：前釋不生、次例明不滅。釋不生為二：初牒不生章門、次釋章門。「不生者」，標章門也。「諸論師」下，第二釋章門也。就文為二：前釋生、次釋不生。釋生為二：初總明諸論師所計、次別出九計。問：此論破迷大乘義，大乘人亦稟八不，云何乃明其計生耶？答：彼雖言學大乘，但作二諦定解，謂世諦自有生、真諦自無生。佛只說生者無生，而彼謂生異無生，故須破之也。有所得人明生與無生，望無所得義並皆是生，是故破生也。又有所得人不知無生生，而作世諦生義不成，是故今破生也。又小乘論師執諸法決定有生，不信大乘無生，則障八不無生；今欲破於小乘障、申八不無生，是故破生，生病既去則無生不留，故五句一無所依。問：今申佛八不二諦中道，云何破諸論師生辯真諦中道耶？答：此可兩望之。若就佛二諦中道，則明因緣生即是不生，故名第一義中道，即顯非是異生而有不生，即生者不生，故名不生。若就破迷教之病，則破諸論師計生義不成，不生自屬外人，然後始得明因緣生即是不生，名為第一義也。師又云：「佛只破眾生橫計生，故名無生，即名此為第一義。何處離此生別有第一義？論主今只申佛破生之教，故申第一義耳。」亦言：破病故申教，亦可即是申此破故名申教也。問：諸論師有幾種迷耶？答：諸論師不知生無生，故迷第一義諦；亦不知無生生，故迷於世諦。問：今列諸論師，與前八謬何異？答：前八謬是外道所計，為佛所破；今諸論師是內道學，為龍樹所破。 > From "That which is unarisen" downwards is the second \[section\], which explains the opening stanza—that is, the text explaining the eight negations. This text is introduced for two purposes: first, to explain the general refutation of all phenomena mentioned above. Because there is neither arising nor ceasing, the remaining six items are likewise non-existent; thus, the two negations \[of arising and ceasing\] comprehensively refute all phenomena, all the more so the eight negations. Second, it is introduced in order to explain the passage on the eight negations itself. In terms of the text, it is explained through two cycles. In the mountains, it was traditionally said: the first cycle explains in terms of the approach of the ultimate truth, and the second cycle explains in terms of the approach of conventional truth. As for why it is explained in terms of the two truths, the Buddhas' preaching of the Dharma always relies on the two truths. Since the eight negations are the Buddha's preaching, they are also the two truths; hence they are explained through the approaches of the two truths. Explaining the ultimate truth first and conventional truth afterwards is because the ultimate truth is the fundamental and conventional truth is the derivative; therefore, it first explains its fundamental aspect and next explains its derivative aspect. Question: How is it known that the former is the ultimate truth and the latter is conventional truth? Answer: The latter says, "because it is directly seen in the world," from which one knows it is conventional truth. Since the latter is conventional truth, one knows that the former is the ultimate truth. At the place of the great scholar Dharma Master Dao'an in the mountains, I heard this when I was nineteen years old. That master said: "The former \[cycle\], on the ultimate truth, borrows arising to reveal non-arising; therefore it adduces the arising \[posited by\] the various treatise masters to elucidate non-arising. The subsequent \[cycle\], on conventional truth, borrows non-arising to reveal arising; therefore it says below that the myriad things are unarisen. Adducing that the myriad things are unarisen is intended to reveal and establish dependent arising." Question: Above it was said that the ultimate truth refutes provisional arising, while the conventional truth refutes real arising. If so, then the former refutation of the arising posited by the various debate-masters should be a refutation of provisional arising, and only the latter would be a refutation of real arising. Answer: In the ultimate truth, both provisional and real are cut off, and it completely refutes both kinds of arising; the various treatise masters establish both provisional and real. Therefore, refuting the arising posited by the various treatise masters is precisely elucidating the middle way of ultimate truth. Since the beginning refutes both provisional and real, while the subsequent only refutes the real, there is also no error. The master also said: "The arising posited by the various treatise masters is, in relation to the Tathāgata, precisely the ultimate truth. As the sūtra says: 'All conventional truths, in relation to the Tathāgata, are precisely the ultimate truth.'" Furthermore, both cycles explaining the eight negations equally refute the inverted, fixed attachments of all persons with appropriation, and equally elucidate the Buddha's middle way of the two truths. It is only that the first cycle explains in general, formulating four pairs of explanations for people of the three faculties; whereas the second cycle takes a specific, presently visible matter to explain it—this is why they differ. Furthermore, the first cycle explains directly, whereas the second cycle explains by verification. Explaining by verification means: when outsiders hear the initial explanation of non-arising, they do not have faith and accept it; therefore it adduces a matter right before one's eyes to reveal and explain it, so it is an explanation by verification. Furthermore, the first cycle directly elucidates that phenomena are unarisen right as they are, whereas the subsequent cycle elucidates that they are originally unarisen. Therefore, the later text relies on the beginning of the kalpa to elucidate non-arising, as well as non-coming, \[non-going,\] and so forth. A scholar at Xinghuang said: The first cycle refutes the real arising of the various treatise masters to elucidate non-arising, explaining in terms of the approach of conventional truth; only in the subsequent cycle can one produce the provisional from intrinsic nature, and by quieting the provisional elucidate the ultimate truth, which is why the latter explains in terms of the approach of the ultimate truth. In the first \[cycle\], it formulates four pairs of explanations, which constitute four distinct parts. The first pair comprises two parts: first, properly explaining non-arising and non-ceasing; second, explaining the subsumption of phenomena. In the first text there are two parts: first, explaining non-arising; second, using it as a model to elucidate non-ceasing. Explaining non-arising has two parts: first, stating the topic heading of non-arising; second, explaining the topic heading. "That which is unarisen" marks the topic heading. From "the various treatise masters" downwards is the second part, explaining the topic heading. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining arising; second, explaining non-arising. Explaining arising has two parts: first, generally stating what the various treatise masters posit; second, separately presenting their nine positions. Question: This treatise refutes deluded interpretations of the Mahāyāna, and Mahāyāna practitioners also receive the eight negations; why then elucidate their positing of arising? Answer: Although they claim to study the Mahāyāna, they merely form fixed understandings of the two truths, claiming that conventional truth naturally possesses arising and ultimate truth naturally lacks arising. The Buddha merely taught that that which arises is unarisen, yet they claim that arising is distinct from non-arising; therefore they must be refuted. When persons with appropriation elucidate arising and non-arising, in comparison with the meaning of non-appropriation, both are entirely arising; therefore arising is refuted. Furthermore, persons with appropriation do not know the arising of non-arising, and so their formulation of the meaning of conventional arising cannot be established; therefore we now refute arising. Furthermore, Hīnayāna treatise masters cling to phenomena as definitely having arising and do not believe in Mahāyāna non-arising, which obstructs the non-arising of the eight negations; now, wishing to refute the Hīnayāna obstruction and elucidate the non-arising of the eight negations, we therefore refute arising. Once the affliction of arising is removed, non-arising does not remain either; therefore the five propositions are left without anything to rely upon. Question: Now, in elucidating the Buddha's middle way of the two truths of the eight negations, how does refuting the arising posited by the various treatise masters clarify the middle way of the ultimate truth? Answer: This may be viewed from two perspectives. If viewed in terms of the Buddha's middle way of the two truths, it clarifies that dependent arising is precisely non-arising, and is therefore called the middle way of the ultimate truth; this reveals that non-arising does not exist distinct from arising—that which arises is itself unarisen, and is therefore called non-arisen. If viewed in terms of refuting the affliction of being deluded about the teaching, it refutes the arising posited by the various treatise masters as unsustainable, non-arising naturally belongs to the opponent, and only then can one clarify that dependent arising is precisely non-arising, which is called the ultimate truth. The master also said: "The Buddha merely refutes the arbitrary positing of arising by sentient beings, and therefore calls it non-arising, which is itself called the ultimate truth. Apart from this arising, where else could there be an ultimate truth? The treatise master now merely elucidates the Buddha's teaching refuting arising, and therefore elucidates the ultimate truth." It is also said: because of refuting errors, he elucidates the teaching; it can also be that precisely elucidating this refutation is what is called elucidating the teaching. Question: How many kinds of delusion do the various treatise masters have? Answer: The various treatise masters do not know the non-arising of arising, and are therefore deluded about the ultimate truth; nor do they know the arising of non-arising, and are therefore deluded about conventional truth. Question: What is the difference between the various treatise masters listed here and the previous eight errors? Answer: The previous eight errors are what the non-Buddhists posited and were refuted by the Buddha; the present treatise masters are Buddhist scholars and are refuted by Nāgārjuna. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.4) - [Next: 3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.6) - [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.3.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.3.5) · Pramāṇa