[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) › 5.10 # 中觀論疏 5.10 中觀論疏 5.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.10) 「答曰」下，第二破。十偈開為六章：初兩偈前後門破、次一偈一時門破、第三兩偈一異門破、第四兩偈偏就異門破、第五兩偈呵責、第六一偈類破餘法，此六門即是破斷煩惱法。大小內外言有煩惱，以解斷之。今六門求煩惱得，可許斷之；求既無從，何所斷耶？又即是明斷煩惱法，以此六門求煩惱不得，即是正觀名無礙道，後念觀起稱為解脫道也。就初兩偈為二：一行半明前有前無，人不能起染；次半偈前有前無，染不能染人。就初又二：前一偈雙縱、次半行雙奪。「若離於染法前自有染者」，上半縱其離染法前自有人體；下半偈縱前有人體，因人起於染用。後半行雙奪者，初句奪上半離染前有人體，離法不得有人，故云「若無有染者」也。第二句奪下半因人起染用也。既無人，誰起染？故言「云何當有染」。問：前人後染，此是誰義？答：莊嚴云前三心成人而未起染，即是前人後起染義。又大小內外多謂前有眾生而起於貪。今問：既未有貪，是何人耶？又未有貪而有人，如未有五指有捲、未有柱梁有舍、未有五陰而有人也。又莊嚴有人體是上半，有人用是下半。開善有人用是下半。「若有若無染」下，第二次破染法。亦應有一行半偈，一行雙縱、半偈俱奪。今示存略，故舉後例前。「若有」者，初一行雙縱也。「若無」者，半行俱奪也。所言「染者亦如是」者，若前有染、若前無染，欲染於者同於上說，故云亦如是。問：前染後人，此是誰義？答：毘曇云未有染法亦未有人名，因有染故方有人名。開善云：前三心有法而無人，並是前染後人也。長行前釋一行半、次釋半行。釋一行半中，初假設作前有前無以責外人。從「要當」下，方順偈本，前無人則無人起染。長行前無人則無人受染，具二義也。「要當先有染者」，釋縱人有體，然後起染，釋縱有用。「若先無染者」，釋奪體。「然則無」下，釋奪用也。次釋後半行，易知也。 > From "Answer" downward is the second part, the refutation. The ten verses are divided into six sections: the first two verses refute via the approach of prior and posterior; the next one verse refutes via the approach of simultaneity; the third, two verses, refutes via the approach of identity and difference; the fourth, two verses, refutes specifically in terms of the approach of difference; the fifth, two verses, consists of reproof; the sixth, one verse, analogously refutes the remaining phenomena. These six approaches are precisely the method of refuting the cutting off of defilements. The Greater and Lesser \[Vehicles\], Buddhist and non-Buddhist, say that defilements exist, and that one cuts them off by means of understanding. Now, if defilements could be found through these six approaches, it could be granted that they are cut off; but since seeking them provides no basis, what is there to cut off? Furthermore, this is precisely elucidating the method of cutting off defilements: seeking defilements through these six approaches and finding none is the correct contemplation, named the path of non-obstruction; the contemplation arising in the subsequent thought-moment is called the path of liberation. Regarding the first two verses, there are two parts: a verse and a half explains that if there is prior existence or prior non-existence, the person cannot give rise to defilement; the next half verse explains that if there is prior existence or prior non-existence, defilement cannot defile the person. Regarding the first, there are again two parts: the preceding one verse both grants \[both positions\]; the next half verse both deprives \[both positions\]. "If, separate from the phenomenon of defilement, there were beforehand by itself the defiled one": the first half grants that prior to being separated from the phenomenon of defilement, the person's substance exists by itself; the lower half of the verse grants that if the person's substance exists beforehand, the function of defilement arises dependent on the person. In the latter half verse that both deprives: the first line deprives the first half's \[assertion that\] prior to separating from defilement, the person's substance exists—because separated from phenomena there can be no person, hence it says "If there is no defiled one." The second line deprives the lower half's \[assertion that\] the function of defilement arises dependent on the person. Since there is no person, who gives rise to defilement? Hence it says: "How could there be defilement?" Question: Prior person and subsequent defilement—whose doctrine is this? Answer: Master Zhuangyan says that the prior three minds accomplish the person while defilement has not yet arisen; this is the meaning of a prior person and subsequently arising defilement. Also, many in the Greater and Lesser \[Vehicles\], Buddhist and non-Buddhist, maintain that sentient beings exist beforehand and give rise to craving. Now I ask: since craving does not yet exist, what kind of person is it? Furthermore, having a person without craving having yet existed is like having a fist without five fingers having yet existed, having a house without pillars and beams having yet existed, or having a person without the five skandhas having yet existed. Again, Zhuangyan takes the person's substance to be the first half, and the person's function to be the lower half. Kaishan takes the person's function to be the lower half. From "Whether defilement exists or does not exist" downward is the second part, refuting the phenomenon of defilement. There should also be a verse and a half: one verse both granting, and half a verse both depriving. Here, to show abbreviation, the latter is cited to exemplify the former. "Whether it exists" is the first single verse both granting. "Or does not exist" is the half verse both depriving. That which says "The defiled one is also like this": whether defilement exists beforehand or does not exist beforehand, its desire to defile the \[defiled\] one is the same as what was stated above; hence it says "is also like this." Question: Prior defilement and subsequent person—whose doctrine is this? Answer: The Abhidharma says that when the phenomenon of defilement does not yet exist, the name "person" also does not yet exist; because defilement exists, only then does the name "person" exist. Kaishan says: in the prior three minds there are phenomena but no person; these are both prior defilement and subsequent person. In the prose, it first explains the verse and a half, and next explains the half verse. In explaining the verse and a half: first, it tentatively poses prior existence and prior non-existence to cross-examine the opponent. From "There must first" downward, it then accords with the original verse: if there is no person beforehand, then there is no person to give rise to defilement. In the prose, if there is no person beforehand, there is no person to receive defilement, possessing both meanings. "There must first be a defiled one" explains granting that the person has substance; "and then gives rise to defilement" explains granting that it has function. "If there is first no defiled one" explains depriving substance. From "Then there would be no" downward explains depriving function. The next explanation of the latter half verse is easy to understand. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.9) - [Next: 5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.11) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.5.10) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.10) · Pramāṇa