[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) › 5.11 # 中觀論疏 5.11 中觀論疏 5.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.11) 「問曰若染法染者先後」下，第二一時門破。然此三偈如《涅槃》納衣梵志難也。彼難云：「身為在前、煩惱在前、為一時有？身若在前，既無煩惱，誰感身耶？若煩惱在前，既未有身，誰起煩惱？若言一時，則不相因。」佛答云：「煩惱與身一時而有。雖一時有，要因煩惱而有於身，終不因身有煩惱也。」開善云：此正是流來無明初念同時義論因果。莊嚴云：非流來義，乃是明於過去身因果義耳。此二師同明一時有於因果，若爾，即如今外人同受論主破也。他問：《涅槃經》作此說，若爾，論主應是破經。答：經中隨緣作如此說，何得執為定義。若定執經，即為論破也。所以知者，前云經雖說有名字，求實不可得也。問：今云何通此經耶？答：經乃是明無身亦無煩惱。何以得知？此中具破前後一時，但借一時破前後、借前後破一時。煩惱與身一時而有，此是借一時破前後也。要因煩惱而有是身，此是借前後破一時。既不前不後亦不一時，豈可定執有身及以煩惱？是知虛妄，不可檢責。又經明雖一時者，此是因緣假名人法一時。今外人謂有人法兩體一時並有。何以得知？若無人法兩體，即無人法，論何一時耶？故知有人法兩體論一時並有也。是以外人不解經意，論主深識經意。若因緣一時即無自性，無自性即人法皆空也。問：人法一時，是誰義耶？答：成論師無明初念人法一時，又莊嚴云色識一時成人，並入此門所破。偈上半牒而非、下半作無待難以釋，並易見也。長行破一時有三過：一不相因過。不相因者，有人法兩體並起即破因緣，若破因緣即破世諦及第一義復破中道，如是世出世一切皆破，此是大過也。二明以不相因即有常過。三者以常故無解脫過，煩惱常即無有餘解脫，人常即無無餘解脫，又常是染人亦無有餘解脫。 > From "Question: If the phenomenon of defilement and the defiled one are prior and posterior" downward is the second part, refutation via the approach of simultaneity. These three verses are like the challenge by the mendicant in patched robes in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. That challenge says: "Does the body come first, does defilement come first, or do they exist simultaneously? If the body is first, since there is no defilement, what brings about the body? If defilement is first, since there is not yet a body, what gives rise to defilement? If you say they are simultaneous, then they are not causally related to each other." The Buddha answered: "Defilement and the body exist simultaneously. Although they exist simultaneously, it is necessarily due to defilement that there is the body, and never due to the body that there is defilement." Kaishan says: this discusses cause and effect precisely in the sense of the flowing-down of ignorance being simultaneous in the first thought-moment. Zhuangyan says: this is not the meaning of flowing-down; it merely explains cause and effect regarding past bodies. Both of these two masters alike explain cause and effect as existing simultaneously. If so, then like the present opponent, they are equally subject to the treatise master's refutation. Another asks: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra makes this statement; if so, the treatise master must be refuting the sūtra! Answer: In the sūtra, it speaks in this way in accordance with conditions; how could one grasp it as a definitive doctrine? If one definitively clings to the sūtra, one is refuted by the treatise. How is this known? Previously it was said that although the sūtra speaks of having names, seeking their actuality they cannot be found. Question: How does one now reconcile this sūtra? Answer: The sūtra actually explains that there is neither body nor defilement. How is this known? Herein, both prior/posterior and simultaneity are refuted; it merely borrows simultaneity to refute prior and posterior, and borrows prior and posterior to refute simultaneity. "Defilement and the body exist simultaneously"—this is borrowing simultaneity to refute prior and posterior. "It is necessarily due to defilement that there is this body"—this is borrowing prior and posterior to refute simultaneity. Since it is neither prior nor posterior, nor simultaneous, how could one definitively grasp that there exist body and defilement? Thus we know they are false and cannot be verified upon examination. Furthermore, when the sūtra explains "although they are simultaneous," this refers to the simultaneity of person and phenomena as conventional designations in dependent origination. Now the opponent supposes that the two substances of person and phenomena exist side-by-side simultaneously. How is this known? If the two substances of person and phenomena did not exist, there would be no person and phenomena; what simultaneity could be discussed? Therefore we know they discuss the two substances of person and phenomena as existing side-by-side simultaneously. For this reason, the opponent does not understand the sūtra's meaning, whereas the treatise master deeply discerns the sūtra's meaning. If it is simultaneity in dependent origination, then there is no intrinsic nature; if there is no intrinsic nature, then person and phenomena are both empty. Question: Simultaneity of person and phenomena—whose doctrine is this? Answer: For Tattvasiddhi masters, person and phenomena are simultaneous in the first thought-moment of ignorance; again, Zhuangyan says form and consciousness simultaneously accomplish the person. Both fall under what is refuted by this approach. In the verse, the first half takes up \[the thesis\] and rejects it; the second half poses the challenge of lack of dependence to explain it; both are easy to see. In the prose, refuting simultaneity has three faults: first, the fault of not being causally related. As for not being causally related: if the two substances of person and phenomena arise side-by-side, this refutes dependent origination; if dependent origination is refuted, conventional truth and ultimate truth are refuted, and the middle way is further refuted; thus, all mundane and supramundane things are refuted—this is a great fault. Second, it explains that because they are not causally related, there is the fault of permanence. Third, because of permanence, there is the fault of having no liberation: if defilement is permanent, there is no liberation with remainder; if the person is permanent, there is no liberation without remainder; and if the defiled person is permanent, there is also no liberation with remainder. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.10) - [Next: 5.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.12) - [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.5.11) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.11) · Pramāṇa