中觀論疏 5.25

5.25

第三偈窮無窮破者，三句作無窮破、一句作有窮。法體是有為既必備三相者，三相是有為亦應復有三相，如是無窮。無窮即破一切智人，以不見其始。既破一切智，即具破世出世一切法也。若三相無有三相，乃免無窮，而墮非有為過。以法體無三相，法體是無為；三相不備三，即三相非有為。故為即無窮、窮即無為，進退無答矣。問：此是何無窮？答：是逆推無窮。法體不能自起，由生相而起，生不能自起，復更由生起；若最後能自起，亦法體能自起。舊舉病人喻，初病人不能自起，須第二病人扶起，第二不能自起，須第三扶起，故無窮；若最後病人能自起，即最初亦能自起也。開善立無窮義，莊嚴立有窮義，俱弊此一偈。開善云：以十方折一塵，十方中一復有十方，如是折之不窮。以剎那折一念，剎那中復有剎那，是亦折無窮，即破一切智，以佛不見其邊底故也。莊嚴云：折之即盡，窮至隣虛色、時窮至剎那。今明此是與論主語違。《智度論》云「若有十方分，即不名極微。若無十方分，即不名為色。」云何無十方有隣虛色耶？問成實師：窮無窮既爾，責一切大小內外並無通矣。「問曰」下，別破三相，即三。破生中又三：初破展轉相生，破薩婆多；次破不展轉相生，破僧祇、成實；三雜破五百部異計。上三門遍破眾師，今三門亦遍窮一切，具此三門即無生不破。所以前破展轉生者，雖有五百部而五部盛行，五部之中薩婆多偏復興世，又正障無生，又大小乘經多有此說。如《涅槃經》云「生不自生，賴生故生。」故先破之也。

Regarding the third verse's refutation by reducing to infinite regress: three lines carry out the refutation through infinite regress, and one line through finiteness. If the substance of a phenomenon is conditioned and thus must be equipped with the three marks, the three marks, being conditioned, should also have three marks, and so on ad infinitum. Infinite regress destroys the omniscient person, because he would not see their beginning. Once the omniscient one is destroyed, all worldly and transworldly phenomena are completely destroyed. If the three marks do not have three marks, one avoids infinite regress but falls into the fault of their not being conditioned. For if the substance of a phenomenon lacked the three marks, the substance of the phenomenon would be unconditioned; if the three marks are not equipped with the three, then the three marks are not conditioned. Therefore, if they are conditioned there is infinite regress, and if regress is terminated they are unconditioned; advancing or retreating, there is no answer. Question: What kind of infinite regress is this? Answer: It is a backwards-tracing infinite regress. The substance of a phenomenon cannot arise by itself; it arises due to the mark of birth. Birth cannot arise by itself; it in turn arises due to [another] birth. If the last could arise by itself, then the substance of the phenomenon could also arise by itself. In the past, the analogy of the sick person was cited: the first sick person cannot get up by himself and needs a second sick person to support him up; the second cannot get up by himself and needs a third to support him up; hence it is infinite. If the last sick person could get up by himself, then the very first could also get up by himself. Master Kaishan established the thesis of infinity, while Master Zhuangyan established the thesis of finiteness; both are defeated by this single verse. Kaishan said: Dividing a speck of dust by the ten directions, one part of the ten directions in turn has ten directions, and dividing it like this never ends. Dividing a single thought-moment by kṣaṇas, within a kṣaṇa there are in turn kṣaṇas; this too is infinite division. This destroys omniscience, because the Buddha would not see its boundary or bottom. Zhuangyan said: Dividing it reaches an end, terminating at subtle matter (paramāṇu), and time terminates at a kṣaṇa. Now we clarify that this contradicts the words of the treatise master. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "If it has parts in the ten directions, it is not called an ultimate atom. If it has no parts in the ten directions, it is not called matter." How could there be subtle matter without the ten directions? We ask the *Tattvasiddhi* masters: since infinite regress and finiteness are like this, examining all—Mahāyāna, Hīnayāna, internal, and external—none are coherent. From "Question:" below, there is the specific refutation of the three marks, which is threefold. Within refuting birth there are again three parts: first, refuting mutual production, which refutes Sarvāstivāda; second, refuting non-mutual production, which refutes the Mahāsāṃghika and the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*; third, miscellaneous refutations of the divergent views of the five hundred sects. The three approaches above comprehensively refuted the various masters, and now these three approaches also comprehensively exhaust everything; possessing these three approaches, there is no [theory of] birth that is not refuted. The reason mutual production is refuted first is that although there are five hundred sects, five sects are prevalent, and among the five sects, Sarvāstivāda is particularly flourishing in the world. Moreover, it directly obstructs non-arising, and both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras often contain this statement, as the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "Birth does not produce itself; relying on production, it is produced." Therefore, it is refuted first.