中觀論疏 5.29

5.29

「問曰」下，第三救。外云八相有二分：一生望六相，此是體同時、用前後。二大小二生體同時、用亦同時，只一剎那中大生生小生時，小生即生大生。猶如外道立拒支瓶，三木一時共起互為因果。內法云：猶如束竹亦一時而有。又《涅槃經》親說一時，汝初偈乃明前有大生、後有小生，故小不能生大。次偈明前有小生、後有大生，故大不能生小。此即非難。前後自是我之所斥，不待論主破也。以大生在前，得能而失從；小生在後，得從而失能，故前後屈二破。今小生從大生生時即能生大，故小生具能從二義。大生亦爾。此捉甚急、辨太精也。

From "Question" downward is the third part, the rescue. The opponent says: The eight characteristics have two divisions. First, production with respect to the six characteristics: here the entities are simultaneous while the functions are sequential. Second, major and minor production: their entities are simultaneous, and their functions are also simultaneous; in just one single kṣaṇa, when major production produces minor production, minor production immediately produces major production. It is just as the non-Buddhists establish the tripod supporting a pot: three pieces of wood rise together simultaneously, mutually serving as cause and effect. The inner teaching says: it is just as a bundle of reeds also exists simultaneously. Furthermore, the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* explicitly speaks of simultaneity. Your first verse only clarified that major production is prior and minor production is posterior, so the minor cannot produce the major. Your next verse clarified that minor production is prior and major production is posterior, so the major cannot produce the minor. This is not a valid objection. Sequence was already rejected by us; there was no need to wait for the treatise master to refute it. For if major production were prior, it would have the ability [to produce] but lose dependency; if minor production were posterior, it would have dependency but lose the ability [to produce]; hence sequence falls to both refutations. Now, when minor production is produced from major production, it can immediately produce the major; hence minor production possesses both meanings of ability and dependency. Major production is also like this. This grip is exceedingly tight, and the discrimination is extremely refined.