中觀論疏 5.30

5.30

「答曰」下，第四破救。初偈破其小生於大，次偈破其大生於小。上半牒、下半破。上半牒二義：「若生生生時」，此牒小生從大生生時，此明小生之體也。「能生於本生」者，此牒小生能生大生也，即小生之用也。大意明當小生從大生生時，即能生大生，故從他生。能生他一時而有，具能從二義也。下半亦兩句。「生生尚未有」者，此捉其初小生從大生生也。「何能生本生」，破其第二句能生大生也。破意云：小生若有自體，即不從大；既其從大，則未有自體。尚未有自體，何能有生大生之用耶？文正爾，便足不煩更厝餘意。而寄文更有別難者，凡相生之理，必能生是有、所生是無。若二俱是有，即俱是能生、無所生；若二俱是無，即俱是所生、無能生。若有能生所生，即一有一無。若得一時即失能所，得能所即失一時。汝言是一時復有能所，是事不然也。又問為有竟論相生相生然後有。若兩法有竟，不須相生；若相生然後有，即未生未有。小生既被大生生，即知未有，云何能生大耶？又問：小生生大，為有體故生大、為體無故生大？若有體故生大，即於能生義成、於被生義壞；若無體生大，即於被生義成、於能生義壞也。又總破云：汝大小相生即能所無定，以能為所即能不定能、以所為能即所不定所，以無定故即不可得。如〈燃可燃品〉若法有待成偈也。亦如《百論》生可生不能生。又大小之名，此義不立。所以然者，以小翻為大，大仍成小。以大能生於小，今小能生此大，豈不力過於大耶？

From "The answer is:" onward is the fourth [section], refuting the defense. The first verse refutes the minor [birth] producing the major [birth], and the next verse refutes the major producing the minor. The first half-verse cites, and the second half-verse refutes. The first half cites two points: "If while the birth of birth is being born" cites the time when the minor birth is born from the major birth, which clarifies the substance of the minor birth. "It can produce the original birth" cites that the minor birth can produce the major birth, which is the function of the minor birth. The general meaning explains that when the minor birth is being born from the major birth, it can immediately produce the major birth; hence it is born from another and can produce another simultaneously, possessing both aspects of "capable" and "dependent". The second half-verse also has two lines. "The birth of birth does not yet exist" seizes upon its first point that the minor birth is born from the major birth. "How could it produce the original birth?" refutes its second line that it can produce the major birth. The point of the refutation is: if the minor birth possessed intrinsic substance, it would not depend on the major; since it depends on the major, it does not yet have an intrinsic substance. When it does not yet have an intrinsic substance, how could it have the function of producing the major birth? The text simply means this; that is sufficient without needlessly adding further notions. Yet, relying on the text, there are other distinct objections: In general, by the principle of mutual production, the producer must exist and what is produced must not exist. If both exist, both would be producers and there would be nothing produced; if both do not exist, both would be produced and there would be no producer. If there is a producer and what is produced, one must exist and one must not exist. If you maintain simultaneity, you lose producer and produced; if you maintain producer and produced, you lose simultaneity. Your claim that there is simultaneity and also producer and produced is not correct. Furthermore, it may be asked: do they exist already and then are mutually produced, or are they mutually produced and only then exist? If the two phenomena already exist, they do not need mutual production; if they are mutually produced and only then exist, before production they do not yet exist. Since the minor birth is produced by the major birth, one knows it does not yet exist; how then could it produce the major? Furthermore, it may be asked: does the minor birth produce the major because it has substance, or does it produce the major because it lacks substance? If it produces the major because it has substance, then the meaning of "producer" is established, but the meaning of "being produced" collapses; if it produces the major without substance, then the meaning of "being produced" is established, but the meaning of "producer" collapses. Furthermore, to refute it comprehensively: your mutual production of major and minor renders producer and produced indeterminate. If the producer is taken as what is produced, the producer is not determinately the producer; if what is produced is taken as the producer, what is produced is not determinately what is produced. Because they are indeterminate, they cannot be established—just as in the verse on things established through mutual dependence in the "Chapter on the Burning and the Burnable", and also like the producer, the producible, and cannot produce in the Śata-śāstra. Moreover, the designations of "major" and "minor" do not hold in this sense. Why? Because the minor would turn out to be the major, and the major would still become the minor. Since the major can produce the minor, if the minor can now produce this major, would its power not surpass that of the major?