[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) › 5.39 # 中觀論疏 5.39 中觀論疏 5.39 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.39) 「問曰若無生應有住」下，第二破住。前問、次答。問三義：一既不許有生，應有住。二者此是對無立有，以生既是無，住便應有。三者上就生救生，今舉住救生。破亦爾，上就生門破生，今就住門破生也。答有四偈，為三：初三時門、次偈就滅不滅、三自他門。所以偈有三門者，初當住破住、次就滅破住、三就生門破住。三處求住不可得，即住事盡矣。「無生云何住」者，有四義：一相待門破，既無生，待何說住？二者破住為顯無生，故無生即無住。三者就三世中求住生不可得，即是無生。以外人言有住相從未來來現在，為生相生此住，故住是所生也。下無生云何滅，亦爾也。四者求生不得，生即是如；求住不得，住即是如。如無二故，生住不異。如眾生如佛，如無異故，眾生佛不異。次兩偈滅不滅破住。為二：初就滅不滅破、第二偈偏釋。初偈下半明無有不滅法，云何不滅法而得住？初偈易見。第二偈云「一切法悉是老死相」者，老是異相、死是滅相。有生住兩相時，即有異滅兩相與之俱起，故言「無常常隨逐」。若爾，豈得言有住無有滅耶？故滅時有住，得共起、墮相違；住時無滅，勉相違、失共起。進退墮負也。「住不自相住」下，第三自他破。上半正作自他破、下半指同生說。自相住是不展轉家義，成論、僧祇所執也。異相住是展轉家義，毘曇所計也。下半指同生者，破生中前具破展轉等二家，今將以類住也。長行四：一牒；「為自相住」下，第二定開；「二俱然」下，第三總非也；「若自相住」，第四作難也。破自相住有三：初明常過。法不假住相，法既是常住，不更由住，即是不從緣，故亦是常也。「住若自相住」，第二以法並破。若相自住，即法亦不假相也。「如眼」下，第三理奪，一切法無有自住也。「若異相住」下，破異相住，為二：初無窮，以法不自住，既從住得住，即住更從住，即免上三失。免上三失者，以更從住，即是從緣，故免常也。住既從住，法亦由住，勉並決失。住不自住，如眼不自見，勉理奪，雖勉三失而墮無窮，易見也。「復次見異法生異相」者，第二作不定破，釋此句者非一。今直出正意，此是立展轉相者免上無窮失，是故今破之。救云：若大住從小住，小住復更由小住，可是無窮；而還由大住住於小住，是故無無窮過也。異法者大住也，異相者小住也。小住既能相於大住而異大住，故名異相。大住為小住所相而異於小住，故名異法。問：何故並稱異？答：立八相家謂八相各自有體，故名異也。今言見異法生異相者，眼見大住生於小住，不得不因異法有異相，必由大住方生小住。此並敘外人義也。「異相不定故」者，小住不能自有、由大住而有，故名不定。小住尚不能自有、由大住而有，何由能住大住耶？又不能自有，既無自體便無小住，以何住大住耶？若舉法體以破相者，異法者所相法體也，異相者住相也。體相互望有能所不同，故悉名為異也。今異相尚因法體而有、不能自有，安能住法體耶？蓋是勢破耳，非正釋文。 > From "Question: If there is no arising, there should be abiding" downwards is the second: refuting abiding. First the question, then the answer. The question has three meanings: First, since arising is not admitted, there should be abiding. Second, this is establishing existence in opposition to non-existence: since arising is non-existent, abiding should exist. Third, above, arising was rescued in terms of arising; now abiding is adduced to rescue arising. The refutation is also like this: above, arising was refuted from the gate of arising; now arising is refuted from the gate of abiding. The answer has four verses, divided into three: first, the gate of the three times; next, the verse on cessation and non-cessation; third, the gate of self and other. Why do the verses have three gates? First, abiding is refuted in its own right; next, abiding is refuted in terms of cessation; third, abiding is refuted in terms of the gate of arising. When seeking abiding in these three places is impossible, then the matter of abiding is exhausted. As for "Without arising, how can there be abiding?", there are four meanings: First, refutation through the gate of mutual dependence: since there is no arising, in dependence on what can abiding be spoken of? Second, refuting abiding is to reveal non-arising; hence, where there is no arising, there is no abiding. Third, seeking the arising of abiding in the three times is impossible, which is precisely non-arising, because the opponent says that there is a characteristic of abiding coming from the future to the present, and it is the characteristic of arising that gives rise to this abiding, so abiding is what is arisen. Below, "without arising, how can there be cessation?" is also like this. Fourth, seeking arising is impossible, and arising is precisely suchness; seeking abiding is impossible, and abiding is precisely suchness. Because suchness is non-dual, arising and abiding are not distinct; just as the suchness of sentient beings and the suchness of Buddhas, because suchness is non-distinct, sentient beings and Buddhas are not distinct. The next two verses refute abiding via cessation and non-cessation, divided into two: first, refutation in terms of cessation and non-cessation; the second verse explains it specifically. The lower half of the first verse clarifies that there is no phenomenon that does not cease; how could an unceasing phenomenon obtain abiding? The first verse is easy to understand. The second verse says, "All phenomena are characteristics of aging and death": aging is the characteristic of alteration, and death is the characteristic of cessation. When the two characteristics of arising and abiding exist, the two characteristics of alteration and cessation immediately arise together with them; hence it says "impermanence constantly pursues \[them\]". If so, how can one say that there is abiding without cessation? Therefore, if there is abiding at the time of cessation, one obtains co-arising but falls into mutual contradiction; if there is no cessation at the time of abiding, one avoids contradiction but loses co-arising. Advancing or retreating, one incurs defeat. From "Abiding does not abide by its own characteristic" downwards is the third: refutation via self and other. The upper half directly makes the refutation of self and other; the lower half refers back to what was said about arising. Abiding by its own characteristic is the doctrine of those who do not hold reciprocal causation, held by the Tattvasiddhi and the Mahāsāṃghikas. Abiding by a different characteristic is the doctrine of those who hold reciprocal causation, maintained by the Abhidharma. The lower half referring back to arising means that, in refuting arising, the two schools of reciprocal causation and so forth were fully refuted before, and now they are applied analogously to abiding. The prose has four parts: first, taking up \[the thesis\]; from "Is it that it abides by its own characteristic..." downwards, second, specifying the options; from "both are so" downwards, third, general negation; "If it abides by its own characteristic", fourth, formulating objections. Refuting abiding by its own characteristic has three points: First, clarifying the fault of permanence: the phenomenon does not rely on the characteristic of abiding; since the phenomenon is permanently abiding and does not further depend on abiding, it does not derive from conditions, and thus is also permanent. "If abiding abides by its own characteristic", second, parallel refutation via the phenomenon: if the characteristic abides of itself, then the phenomenon also does not rely on the characteristic. From "Just as the eye..." downwards, third, logical refutation: no phenomenon abides of itself. From "If it abides by a different characteristic" downwards, refuting abiding by a different characteristic is divided into two: First, infinite regress: since the phenomenon does not abide of itself and obtains abiding from abiding, then abiding further derives from abiding, thus avoiding the three faults above. Avoiding the three faults above means: because it further derives from abiding, it derives from conditions, thus avoiding \[the fault of\] permanence; since abiding derives from abiding, the phenomenon also depends on abiding, avoiding the fault of parallel refutation; abiding does not abide of itself, just as the eye does not see itself, avoiding logical refutation; though avoiding the three faults, it falls into infinite regress, which is easy to understand. Next, "Furthermore, seeing that a different phenomenon gives rise to a different characteristic" is the second: a refutation through indeterminacy. Explanations of this line are not singular. Now I directly state the correct intent: this is an attempt by those who assert reciprocal characteristics to avoid the fault of infinite regress above, which is therefore now refuted. Their rescue says: if great abiding derived from secondary abiding, and secondary abiding further depended on \[another\] secondary abiding, that would indeed be infinite regress; but secondary abiding is in turn caused to abide by great abiding, and therefore there is no fault of infinite regress. 'Different phenomenon' refers to great abiding; 'different characteristic' refers to secondary abiding. Since secondary abiding can characterize great abiding and is different from great abiding, it is called a different characteristic; great abiding is characterized by secondary abiding and is different from secondary abiding, so it is called a different phenomenon. Question: Why are both called 'different'? Answer: The school asserting eight characteristics holds that the eight characteristics each have their own distinct substance, hence they are called 'different'. Now, saying "seeing that a different phenomenon gives rise to a different characteristic" means that the eye sees that great abiding gives rise to secondary abiding; it cannot fail to have a different characteristic dependent on a different phenomenon, and must depend on great abiding to give rise to secondary abiding. All of this recounts the opponent's doctrine. Regarding "Because the different characteristic is indeterminate": secondary abiding cannot exist of itself and exists dependent on great abiding, hence it is called indeterminate. If secondary abiding cannot even exist of itself and exists dependent on great abiding, how could it cause great abiding to abide? Moreover, not being able to exist of itself, having no intrinsic substance, there is no secondary abiding; by means of what could it cause great abiding to abide? If one adduces the substance of the dharma to refute the characteristic: the 'different phenomenon' is the substance of the dharma that is characterized, and the 'different characteristic' is the characteristic of abiding. Looking at substance and characteristic in relation to each other, they differ as active and passive, so both are named 'different'. Now, since the different characteristic still exists dependent on the substance of the dharma and cannot exist of itself, how can it cause the substance of the dharma to abide? This is merely a refutation by momentum of argument, not the primary explanation of the text. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.38) - [Next: 5.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.40) - [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.5.39) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.5.39) · Pramāṇa