中觀論疏 4.27

4.27

「見可見無故」者，依偈是第六明因無故果無。所言因者，眼色和合生於眼識乃至四取，故眼色為因、識等為果。若望品意，從品初都是破見因竟，謂求三種見不得即明無因，是故今第二次明無果。見可見無故，近牒第五偈下半，遠牒一品破也。「識等四法無」者，破無果也。依成實義，眼色和合生於眼識，識生想，想生受，受生行，次第取假實境。上既破無眼見色，即四心不生也。依毘曇義者，上以破無眼見色，今次破無四法。四法者，眼色和合生於眼識，眼識所以得生。次由觸，觸和合根塵，以觸和合根塵即生苦樂捨三受，三受後次生愛。雖生餘心數，但受是三界果報主，故偏說生受。三受後次生三毒，但愛是三界受生本，故偏說愛也。眾事分正明此四法，與今長行同。《大品》亦明眼觸因緣生受，乃至意觸因緣生受也。「四取」者，《婆沙》云「四方馳求名為四取。」《勝鬘經》以四住地為四取，故云「有漏業因，四取為緣，生三界內」也。今此中別明四取，依毘曇總攝百八煩惱為四取體。三界有利鈍二使，各開二分：欲界鈍使取外五欲，名為欲取。上二界鈍使不取外五欲不名欲取，但取內法名我語取；三界四見為見取；三界惑取名為惑取。鈍使就界分二：利使約重輕為兩，惑取雖一但內外二人計非道為道，此過既深，故獨為一取；餘四見合為一取。《成論》明四取，其體即局也。「等諸緣」者，四取既無即不起三業，三業無故未來二果亡。觀見可見空，即十二緣河竭、佛性水生。此偈即明破六情之大意也。「耳鼻舌身意」下，第二類破五情等法。釋根塵合離有二師：數云三根合謂鼻舌身，三根離即眼耳意。《成論》總六根四句：眼但離不合；鼻舌身但合不離；耳亦離亦合，聞外聲為離、聞耳鳴為合；意非離非合，以無形故。今此偈總明六情不可得離合之性，即空也。

As for "Because seeing and the visible are non-existent": according to the verses, this is the sixth, explaining that because the cause is non-existent, the result is non-existent. What is called the cause is that the combination of the eye and visible form produces the eye-consciousness up to the four graspings (upādāna); thus the eye and visible form are the cause, and consciousness and the rest are the result. Looking at the chapter's intention: from the beginning of the chapter, it has entirely completed refuting the cause of seeing—that is, seeking the three kinds of seeing and not finding them clarifies that there is no cause; therefore, now for the second time it clarifies that there is no result. "Because seeing and the visible are non-existent" proximately restates the second half of the fifth verse, and distantly restates the refutation of the entire chapter. "The four dharmas such as consciousness are non-existent" refutes the non-existence of the result. According to the meaning in the Tattvasiddhi, the combination of the eye and visible form produces the eye-consciousness, consciousness produces ideation (saṃjñā), ideation produces feeling (vedanā), and feeling produces volitional formations (saṃskāra), successively grasping provisional and real objects. Above, having refuted and eliminated the eye seeing visible form, these four minds are not produced. According to the Abhidharma doctrine: above, having refuted and eliminated the eye seeing visible form, now it next refutes and eliminates the four dharmas. As for the four dharmas: the combination of the eye and visible form produces the eye-consciousness, by which the eye-consciousness can arise. Next is through contact (sparśa), contact combining the sense-base and sense-object; because contact combines the sense-base and sense-object, it produces the three feelings of suffering, pleasure, and neutral feeling; after the three feelings, it next produces craving (tṛṣṇā). Although other mental factors (caitta) are produced, feeling alone is the master of retribution in the three realms; hence it specifically speaks of producing feeling. After the three feelings, it next produces the three poisons; but craving alone is the root of taking birth in the three realms; hence it specifically speaks of craving. The Prakaraṇapāda directly clarifies these four dharmas, identical with the present prose. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā also clarifies that feelings arise with eye-contact as cause and condition, up to feelings arising with mind-contact as cause and condition. As for "the four graspings": the Vibhāṣā says, "Pursuing and seeking in the four directions is called the four graspings." The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra takes the four entrenchments (bhūmi) as the four graspings; hence it says: "Impure karma is the cause, and the four graspings are the condition, producing [birth] within the three realms." Now here it specifically clarifies the four graspings: according to the Abhidharma, it subsumes all one hundred and eight defilements as the substance of the four graspings. In the three realms there are sharp and dull proclivities (anuśaya), each divided into two parts: the dull proclivities of the desire realm grasp the outer five desires, called the grasping of desires (kāmopādāna). The dull proclivities of the upper two realms do not grasp the outer five desires and are not called the grasping of desires, but only grasp internal phenomena, called the grasping of the theory of self (ātmavādopādāna). The four views of the three realms constitute the grasping of views (dṛṣṭyupādāna); the delusion-grasping of the three realms is called the grasping of rules and vows (śīlavratopādāna). The dull proclivities are divided into two according to realm; the sharp proclivities are divided into two according to heavy and light. Although the delusion-grasping is one, both internal and external people reckon what is not the path to be the path; since this fault is severe, it uniquely constitutes one grasping; the remaining four views are combined into one grasping. In the Tattvasiddhi's explanation of the four graspings, their substance is restricted. As for "and all other conditions": since the four graspings are non-existent, one does not arouse the three karmas; because the three karmas are non-existent, the two future results perish. When one contemplates seeing and the visible as empty, the river of the twelve links of dependent origination dries up, and the water of Buddha-nature arises. This verse directly clarifies the main intention of refuting the six sense-faculties. From "The ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind" downward: second, by analogy it refutes phenomena such as the five sense-faculties. There are two masters explaining the contact and separation of sense-bases and sense-objects: the Sarvāstivādins say that three sense-bases act in contact, namely nose, tongue, and body; three sense-bases act separated, namely eye, ear, and mind. The Tattvasiddhi summarizes the six sense-bases in four propositions: the eye is only separated and not in contact; the nose, tongue, and body are only in contact and not separated; the ear is both separated and in contact—hearing external sounds is separated, hearing ringing in the ears is in contact; the mind is neither separated nor in contact, because it is formless. Now this verse generally clarifies that the six sense-faculties cannot be grasped as having a nature of separation or contact; thus they are empty.