[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) › 4.30 # 中觀論疏 4.30 中觀論疏 4.30 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.30) 品有九偈，為二：初七偈求五陰畢竟空、第二兩偈歎美畢竟空。小乘五百部聞五陰畢竟空如刀傷心，大士聞之即生歡喜，是故稱歎。《法華》云「復有住禪得神通力，聞諸法空心大歡喜。」是故歎之。七偈為二：初六偈觀色陰空、次一偈觀四陰空。色陰麁顯故前觀、四心陰昧即後破。又色陰在初、四心居後。又去來六情觀色陰之用不可得，今次觀色體空。觀色為三：第一三偈作因果不相離門破、第二兩偈有因無因門破、第三一偈相似不相似門破。三偈又二：初偈標章門、兩偈釋章門。章門為二：上半離因無果章門、下半離果無因章門。問：云何是色因果耶？答：若即事言，頭足為因七尺之身為果。若就義者，如外道云：從五塵生五大，五大生十一根，十一根生色身，色身為果、餘者為因。數人四大造五根，四大為因、五根為果。《成論》四微成四大，四大成五根，五根成色陰，色陰是果、餘並為因。數論同以過去善惡業生此報果也。問：因果不相離云何是破耶？答：外人言色與色因相因故而有；論主明只為色因與色相因故無，以相因故無自性，無自性即畢竟空。色本無體，因緣故生，以過去業行為因、今世四大為緣，藉此因緣是故有色，當知即是空也。如以面為因、以鏡為緣，像於中現而像畢竟空。又〈四諦品〉云「果從罪福生，云何言不空？」此釋經云「色即是空」，只以從因生，故所以空也。長行云「除縷即無布」者，而縷布互得相因。而惑者多執一邊，謂離縷無布，布為縷所成，而不信離布無縷，云縷不為布所成，故除布有縷。今明縷布相因猶是一例耳。今問：汝既有即布之縷、復有異布之縷，亦應有即縷之布、離縷之布。若即布之縷此縷成布，離布之縷此不成布者，亦應有即縷之布此布成縷，異縷之布此布不成縷。問：何者是即布之縷、異布之縷也？答：用縷織作布，是即布之縷。不用縷織作布，是異布之縷。今因布有縷，此是離布無縷；不因布有縷，此是離布之縷。 > This chapter has nine verses, divided into two parts: the first seven verses seek the ultimate emptiness of the five aggregates, and the latter two verses praise ultimate emptiness. When the five hundred Hīnayāna schools hear that the five aggregates are ultimately empty, it is like a knife wounding their hearts; when great beings hear it, joy immediately arises in them, and therefore it is praised. The \*Lotus Sūtra\* says: "Furthermore, there are those who abide in dhyāna and attain supernormal powers; hearing that all dharmas are empty, their hearts are filled with great joy." Therefore it is praised. The seven verses are divided into two: the first six verses examine the emptiness of the aggregate of matter, and the following one verse examines the emptiness of the four \[mental\] aggregates. Because the aggregate of matter is coarse and evident, it is examined first; the four mental aggregates are subtle and obscure, so they are refuted later. Furthermore, the aggregate of matter comes first, and the four mental aggregates come after. Moreover, by means of \[the chapters on\] coming and going and the six sense-faculties, the functions of the aggregate of matter were examined and found to be unobtainable; now, next, the emptiness of the substance of matter is examined. The examination of matter has three parts: first, three verses refute it by way of the approach that cause and effect are not separate; second, two verses refute it by way of the approach of being with a cause or without a cause; third, one verse refutes it by way of the approach of being similar or not similar. The three verses again have two parts: the first verse sets forth the primary topic, and two verses explain the primary topic. The primary topic has two parts: the first half is the topic of there being no effect separate from the cause; the second half is the topic of there being no cause separate from the effect. Question: What are the cause and effect of matter? Answer: If speaking in terms of concrete things, the head and feet are the cause, and the seven-foot body is the effect. If according to doctrinal principles: as non-Buddhists say, from the five subtle objects the five great elements are born, the five great elements give rise to the eleven faculties, the eleven faculties give rise to the material body; the material body is the effect, and the others are the causes. The Abhidharma masters hold that the four great elements create the five faculties; the four great elements are the cause, and the five faculties are the effect. The \*Tattvasiddhi\* holds that the four subtle atoms form the four great elements, the four great elements form the five faculties, the five faculties form the aggregate of matter; the aggregate of matter is the effect, and the rest are all causes. Both the Abhidharma and the \*Tattvasiddhi\* agree that past good and evil karma generates this retributive effect. Question: How does 'cause and effect are not separate' constitute a refutation? Answer: The opponent says that because matter and the cause of matter are mutually dependent, they exist; the author of the treatise clarifies that precisely because the cause of matter and matter are mutually dependent, they do not exist. Because they are mutually dependent, they lack intrinsic nature; lacking intrinsic nature, they are ultimately empty. Matter originally has no substance, but arises through causes and conditions: taking past karmic actions as the cause and the four great elements of the present life as the condition, relying on these causes and conditions matter therefore exists; one should know that it is immediately empty. It is just as when a face is taken as the cause and a mirror as the condition, an image appears within it, yet the image is ultimately empty. Furthermore, the chapter "Examination of the Four Noble Truths" says: "The effect arises from vice and merit; how can it be said not to be empty?" This explains the sūtra statement that "matter is emptiness": precisely because it arises from causes, it is therefore empty. The prose states, "Apart from threads there is no cloth": yet threads and cloth are mutually dependent. But deluded persons mostly grasp at one side, asserting that apart from threads there is no cloth, and that cloth is formed by threads, but they do not believe that apart from cloth there are no threads, saying that threads are not formed by cloth, so that apart from cloth there are threads. Now we clarify that the mutual dependence of threads and cloth is just of the same sort. We now ask: Since you have threads that are identical to the cloth and also have threads that are distinct from the cloth, there should also be cloth that is identical to the threads and cloth that is separate from the threads. If the threads identical to the cloth form the cloth, while the threads separate from the cloth do not form this cloth, then there should also be cloth identical to the threads that forms the threads, and cloth distinct from the threads that does not form these threads. Question: What are the threads identical to the cloth and the threads distinct from the cloth? Answer: Using threads to weave cloth—these are threads identical to the cloth. Not using threads to weave cloth—these are threads distinct from the cloth. Now, because of cloth there are threads—this is 'apart from cloth there are no threads'; not because of cloth there are threads—this is 'threads separate from cloth'. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.29) - [Next: 4.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.31) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.4.30) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.30) · Pramāṇa