中觀論疏 5.8

5.8

所以有此品來者，凡有八義：一者上來諸品求身不可得，故情陰除此身之有、六種破身之無，有無既淨，即身畢竟空。又情陰除身之末、六種破身之本，本末既淨，即內外皆空。惑者復云：若言無身，云何有心？既其有心，必有身也。故《十地經》云「三界皆一心作」，故心為六趣之本，本有故末不無也。但身相麁顯故前觀，心相微細即後檢也。二者生死患累有於因果，情陰為果、三毒為因。上檢無果，今觀無因。《涅槃》明十二因緣始不生滅、終無因果，明五性義。《大品》觀十二因緣明三波若義，得上諸品波若佛性並成，若見十二因緣即緣河滿、性河傾。今觀十二不因果，即性河滿、緣河傾。本對緣河故有性河，緣河既傾、性河亦息，即二河俱傾。為眾生故，有緣性二方便、緣性二河俱滿義，是以此論觀十二因果義也。問：何故先觀果、後觀因？答：果相顯、因相隱，故先觀果。問：《智度論》云「鈍根者從果觀，利根者從因觀。」此論明大乘觀行，云何從果觀？答：《智度論》云「菩薩為眾生，故亦從果觀。」今此論為末世鈍根，故從果觀也。三者自上已來正明法空，今此一品人法雙泯，染法為因、人者是果。四者的從上品末生，上云「淺智見諸法，若有若無相。」長行云「見諸法生時取相言有，見法滅時取相言無。」外人云：若爾，應有取相。取相煩惱，煩惱即是染法。起取相者，即是染人。是故今品次破取相也。五者欲破一切內外大小乘人斷煩惱義。《淨名經》云「若須菩提不斷煩惱亦不與俱，乃可取食。」明斷不斷凡有四人：一者在家凡夫，三毒現前不明除斷。二者出家外道，斷三空惑，非想一地未能除之。故《涅槃經》云「是諸外道，將盡三有而復迴還。」釋凡夫斷惑有二師：數家明凡夫斷惑，以數人見有得道，凡夫亦見有故斷惑。成實明見空斷惑，凡夫不見空相，但就有中伏耳。三者二乘之人斷三界惑，而未除習氣及界外無明。四者大乘人，具斷五住煩惱。總上四人以為二類：凡夫之人與煩惱俱，自後三種名為斷惑。若爾，皆為淨名所呵。今明了煩惱本不生故不與俱，今亦無滅即無所斷，乃免被呵。今此品求煩惱無從，即廣釋不斷不俱不之義，故有此品來也。六者又如諸部本有煩惱，更復種種推畫興於諍論，即於煩惱上重起煩惱，故惑不除、新累更起。今此品觀煩惱畢竟皆空，即故惑既除而新惑不起名得解脫，故說此品也。七者遍釋諸大乘經甚深要觀。如《無行經》云「婬欲即是道，恚癡亦復然。如是三法中，無量諸佛道。」《涅槃經》云「心共貪生，不共貪滅。」若能依此品正觀煩惱，即是心共貪生、不共貪滅；不如此品觀，即心共貪生、共貪俱滅。又《法華》呼斷結為除糞下賤人。今內外大小乘人言：有煩惱可斷、有智能斷。豈非除糞人耶？論主憐愍如此等人，並令成長者尊貴之子，捨除糞之業，故說此品。問：《大品》云「一念相應慧，斷煩惱及習。」又云「菩薩無礙道中行，佛在解脫道中行。」諸大乘經皆明斷惑。又如《地持論》「菩薩斷惑障盡，佛斷智障盡。」云何斷惑皆是除糞？答：大乘經論明斷者，以了惑本不生故言除耳，非先有惑而後除之令無。《大品》又云「若先有後無，諸佛菩薩即有過罪。」又二十六卷最後云「諸法本有今無耶？」以此推之知無所斷，無所斷即是斷耳，亦得有無礙解脫。前念知惑不生為無礙，後念無生為解脫也。八者遍釋諸大乘經方等懺悔義。如《普賢觀》云「十方諸佛說懺悔法，菩薩所行不斷結使、不住使海。」了此煩惱即是實相，無煩惱可住亦無惑可斷，令此心與實相相應，於一彈指頃能滅百萬億阿僧祇劫生死之罪，況復多時。問：何故爾？答：夫乖理故為罪，罪即虛妄；若與實相相應即便符理，理是真實，以實治虛故滅眾罪。論主無緣大悲，愍末世重罪眾生，示真實方等大懺速滅三障法門，故說此品。釋染染者不同。一世間人但知有三毒，不解尋究原由。外道亦明三毒，如僧佉覺諦不淨分中有黑染麁。衛世師求那諦中二十一法中有於愚者，愚即三毒中一。當知外道同明三毒。然覺與神既有一異等四家，染與者亦有一異等四計也。《婆沙》、《雜心》出內學三部，謂三成部、二成部、一成部。犢子部具有三成，有六塵境能生三毒故事成，有人能起三毒故人成，有煩惱為人所起故結成。薩婆多二成，實有六塵故事成，有所生三毒故結成，無人故不成。譬喻部人不成、事不成，但有結成，無人故人不成也。前境無定，如一女色，貪人見之為淨；不淨觀人謂不淨；無預之人無所適漠，故非淨不淨；悲心人見之起悲；空觀人即見其空，故境不定即境不成。《唯識論》及《攝大乘》明無有外境，是境不成義；唯有於識，但是結成。今此品破染染者，即備破三種成義。以三部雖異，不出人法故也。莊嚴師明有假人體，入三成部攝。光宅師明無人，入二成部攝。開善無體入二成、有用入三成，斥同兩家之義。問：既稱染染者，為心性本淨故染、不淨故染？答僧祇及《地論》云：心性本淨，如日在天，本性清淨，客塵煩惱染故不淨。成論師云：心有得佛之理，不為煩惱所染，故云清淨。而言客塵者，煩惱雖復牢固，始終可斷，非永安義，故云客。薩婆多云：本有不淨心及以淨心，但有同時染、異時染義。如貪心與諸數並起，即縛同時心數，謂同時染義。復有前後染義，即是緣縛，謂貪心緣三世境縛三世境也。成論師明前三心未起貪瞋，但是無記，名之為淨。後行陰起煩惱，染前三心，名為不淨。此但是前後相染，無同時染。雖復有同時異時，終明有煩惱染心義，為今論主所破。問：《勝鬘經》云「自性清淨心，為客塵煩惱染。難可了知。」豈不同舊義耶？答：此明即眾生心本清淨，於眾生成不淨。雖於眾生成不淨，然未嘗不淨，即是不染而染、染而不染，故云難可了知。不言實有煩惱以染心也。問：煩惱為是心、為非心耶？答：數論同明煩惱是心法，與心相應。毘婆闍婆提部明煩惱與心不相應，如《雜心．使品》末說。今明相應不相應，終有煩惱染心，亦為今論所破。問：文具破三毒，云何但題破染染者？答：三毒俱黑行人故名染。又染是三毒初故。又生死本際有二：無明與愛。無明是前分本，已起不可治；愛是後分本，論主慈悲欲令不起三因得勉二果，故偏破染也。問：三毒中初是貪，今云何名染？答：貪雖是染，染通三界，貪但欲界，今欲遍治三界惑，故破染。又貪染人，故名染也。

The reason why this chapter follows has eight aspects in all:

First: In the preceding chapters, when seeking for the body, it could not be found. Thus, the skandhas of feeling and perception eliminated the existence of this body, and the six elements refuted the nonexistence of the body; since existence and nonexistence have both been purified, the body is ultimately empty. Furthermore, feeling and perception eliminated the branch-manifestations of the body, and the six elements refuted the root of the body; since root and branches have both been purified, inner and outer are both empty. The deluded might then say: "If you say there is no body, how can there be mind? Since there is mind, there must certainly be a body." Thus the Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: "The three realms are all made by the one mind"; hence mind is the root of the six destinies. Since the root exists, the branches cannot be nonexistent. However, because bodily characteristics are coarse and prominent, they were examined first, while mental characteristics are subtle and fine, and are thus examined later.

Second: The afflictions and bondages of birth-and-death consist of cause and effect: the skandhas of feeling and perception are the effect, and the three poisons are the cause. The preceding [chapters] examined and found no effect; now [this chapter] investigates and finds no cause. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains that the twelve links of dependent origination are fundamentally unarisen and unceasing, and ultimately without cause and effect, which explains the meaning of the five natures. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra examines the twelve links of dependent origination to elucidate the meaning of the three prajñās: when one attains the prajñā and Buddha-nature of all the preceding chapters, if one perceives the twelve links of dependent origination, the river of conditions is filled and the river of nature is overturned. Now, examining the twelve [links] as neither cause nor effect, the river of nature is filled and the river of conditions is overturned. Originally, it was in contrast to the river of conditions that there was a river of nature; since the river of conditions has been overturned, the river of nature also ceases, meaning both rivers are overturned together. For the sake of sentient beings, there are the two expedient means of condition and nature, and the meaning in which both the river of conditions and the river of nature are filled; therefore this treatise examines the meaning of cause and effect in the twelve [links].

Question: Why examine the effect first and the cause later?
Answer: The characteristics of the effect are manifest, whereas the characteristics of the cause are hidden; therefore the effect is examined first.

Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Those of dull faculties contemplate from the effect; those of sharp faculties contemplate from the cause." This treatise expounds the practice of contemplation in the Mahāyāna; why does it contemplate from the effect?
Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Bodhisattvas, for the sake of sentient beings, also contemplate from the effect." Now this treatise is for the dull-witted of the final age, and therefore contemplates from the effect.

Third: Up to this point, the text has directly elucidated the emptiness of dharmas; now, in this single chapter, both person and dharmas are obliterated together: the dharma of passion is the cause, and the impassioned person is the effect.

Fourth: It arises specifically from the end of the previous chapter. Above it was said: "Those of shallow wisdom see phenomena as having the characteristics of existence or nonexistence." The prose says: "Seeing phenomena arise, they grasp at characteristics and call it existence; seeing phenomena cease, they grasp at characteristics and call it nonexistence." An opponent would say: "If so, there must be grasping at characteristics. Grasping at characteristics is affliction, and affliction is the dharma of passion. The one who gives rise to grasping at characteristics is the impassioned person." Therefore, this present chapter next refutes grasping at characteristics.

Fifth: It aims to refute the notion of severing afflictions held by all insiders, outsiders, Mahāyāna, and Hīnayāna practitioners. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: "If Subhūti does not sever afflictions yet does not abide with them, only then may you take the food." Regarding severing and not severing, there are four kinds of persons in all:
1. Lay worldlings: the three poisons are actively present, and they do not understand eradication and severing.
2. Renunciant heterodox practitioners: they sever the defilements of the three intermediate realms of emptiness, but are unable to eradicate those of the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "These heterodox practitioners come near to exhausting the three realms of existence, yet turn back again." As for the explanation of how worldlings sever defilements, there are two masters: the Sarvāstivādins explain that worldlings sever defilements because the Sarvāstivādins attain the path by seeing existence, and worldlings also sever defilements because they see existence. The Tattvasiddhi explains that one severs defilements by seeing emptiness; worldlings do not see the characteristics of emptiness, but merely suppress [defilements] within existence.
3. Persons of the two vehicles: they sever the defilements of the three realms, but have not eliminated habitual propensities and the ignorance beyond the realms.
4. Persons of the Mahāyāna: they fully sever the afflictions of the five entrenchments.

Combining the above four kinds of persons, there are two classes: worldlings abide together with afflictions; the latter three kinds are designated as "severing defilements." If so, they are all rebuked by Vimalakīrti. Now, by understanding that afflictions are fundamentally unarisen, one does not abide with them; since they also have no cessation now, there is nothing to sever, and thus one avoids being rebuked. Now, this chapter searches for afflictions and finds no source, which extensively explains the meaning of neither severing nor abiding together with them; hence this chapter comes next.

Sixth: Furthermore, just as the various abhidharma schools hold that afflictions fundamentally exist and then engage in all kinds of conjectural elaborations, giving rise to disputes, this means giving rise to further afflictions on top of afflictions; thus the old defilements are not eliminated, and new encumbrances arise again. Now, this chapter contemplates afflictions as ultimately empty in all respects; thus, old defilements are eliminated and new defilements do not arise, which is called attaining liberation; therefore this chapter is spoken.

Seventh: It comprehensively explains the profound and essential contemplations of the various Mahāyāna sūtras. As the Wuxing jing says: "Lust is itself the Path; anger and delusion are likewise. Within these three dharmas are the immeasurable Paths of all Buddhas." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The mind arises together with greed, but does not perish together with greed." If one can correctly contemplate afflictions according to this chapter, that is "the mind arising together with greed, but not perishing together with greed"; if one does not contemplate according to this chapter, then the mind arises together with greed and perishes together with greed. Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra calls the severing of fetters the work of an outcast dung-cleaner. Now the insiders, outsiders, Mahāyāna, and Hīnayāna say: "There are afflictions to be severed, and there is wisdom able to sever them." Are they not dung-cleaners? The treatise master, pitying such people, wishes to enable them all to become the noble sons of the elder and abandon the occupation of dung-cleaning; therefore he speaks this chapter.

Question: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "With wisdom corresponding to a single thought, one severs afflictions and habitual propensities." It also says: "Bodhisattvas practice in the path of non-hindrance; Buddhas practice in the path of liberation." All Mahāyāna sūtras explain the severing of defilements. Furthermore, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "Bodhisattvas sever the affliction-obstacle completely; Buddhas sever the knowledge-obstacle completely." How can all severing of defilements be dung-cleaning?
Answer: When the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises explain severing, they speak of "eradicating" simply because one realizes that defilements are fundamentally unarisen; it does not mean that defilements exist first and are afterwards eradicated to make them nonexistent. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra also says: "If they existed first and became nonexistent later, then all Buddhas and bodhisattvas would incur fault and guilt." Furthermore, at the end of the twenty-sixth fascicle, it says: "Are all phenomena fundamentally existent and now nonexistent?" Deduce from this that there is nothing to sever; having nothing to sever is itself severing. One can also attain the non-hindered and liberation: the preceding thought-moment knowing that defilements do not arise is the non-hindered, and the subsequent thought-moment of non-arising is liberation.

Eighth: It comprehensively explains the meaning of the universal repentance of the vaipulya sūtras throughout the Mahāyāna. As the Guan Puxian pusa xingfa jing says: "The Buddhas of the ten directions expound the method of repentance: the bodhisattva's practice neither severs the fetters nor abides in the sea of fetters." When one realizes that these afflictions are themselves the true reality, there are no afflictions in which to abide and no defilements to sever; causing this mind to accord with true reality, in the snap of a finger one can eliminate the sins of birth-and-death accumulated over hundreds of thousands of koṭis of asaṃkhyeya kalpas, not to mention over a long time.

Question: Why is that so?
Answer: Going against principle constitutes sin, and sin is false and unreal; if one accords with true reality, one immediately conforms to principle. Principle is real; because the real cures the unreal, all sins are eliminated. With unconditioned great compassion, the treatise master pities sentient beings of heavy sin in the final age and reveals the dharma-gate of the true vaipulya great repentance that swiftly eliminates the three obstacles; therefore he speaks this chapter.

Explanations of passion and the impassioned differ. First, worldly people only know that the three poisons exist, and do not understand how to trace their origin. Non-Buddhists also explain the three poisons: for instance, in the Sāṃkhya intellect truth (buddhi-tattva), the impure division contains tamas, rajas, and sthūla. In the Vaiśeṣika guṇa category, among the twenty-one phenomena there is delusion (moha); delusion is one of the three poisons. One should know that non-Buddhists likewise explain the three poisons. However, since there are four positions regarding whether intellect and spirit (puruṣa) are identical or different, etc., there are likewise four views on whether passion and the impassioned are identical or different, etc.

The Vibhāṣā and the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya present three schools within inner Buddhist learning: the three-established school, the two-established school, and the one-established school. The Vātsīputrīya possesses all three established: because there are the objects of the six sense-fields capable of producing the three poisons, "things" are established; because there is a person capable of giving rise to the three poisons, the "person" is established; because there are afflictions given rise to by the person, the "fetters" are established. The Sarvāstivāda has two established: the six sense-fields truly exist, so "things" are established; there are the three poisons produced, so the "fetters" are established; but there is no person, so the person is not established. The Dā郊tāntikas have neither person established nor things established, but only the fetters established: because there is no person, the person is not established; the external objective field is indefinite—just as with a single woman's physical form, a greedy person sees it as pure, a practitioner of the contemplation of impurity regards it as impure, an indifferent person has no attraction or repulsion and thus sees it as neither pure nor impure, a person of compassionate heart sees it and gives rise to compassion, and a practitioner of the contemplation of emptiness sees it as empty—thus, because the objective field is indefinite, the objective field is not established. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha explain that there are no external objective fields, which is the meaning of the objective field not being established; there is only consciousness, which is merely the establishment of fetters. Now, in refuting passion and the impassioned, this chapter completely refutes all three established positions, for although the three schools differ, they do not go beyond person and dharmas. Master Zhuangyan held that there is a provisional personal entity, which falls under the three-established school. Master Guangzhai held that there is no person, which falls under the two-established school. Kaishan held that having no entity falls under the two-established, and having function falls under the three-established, reproving and equating the views of both masters.

Question: Since they are called "passion" and "the impassioned," does it mean that because the mind-nature is fundamentally pure, it becomes defiled, or because it is impure, it becomes defiled?
Answer: The Mahāsāṃghika and the Daśabhūmika-śāstra say: The mind-nature is fundamentally pure, just like the sun in the sky; its fundamental nature is clear and pure, but adventitious defilements stain it so that it becomes impure. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: The mind possesses the principle of attaining Buddhahood and is not defiled by afflictions, hence it is said to be pure; as for the expression "adventitious defilement," although afflictions are stubborn, they can ultimately be severed and do not abide forever, hence they are called "adventitious." The Sarvāstivādins say: Fundamentally there are impure minds as well as pure minds, but there are the senses of simultaneous defilement and non-simultaneous defilement: when a greedy mind arises together with the mental factors, it binds the simultaneous mental factors, which is called simultaneous defilement; there is also the sense of anterior-posterior defilement, which is object-binding, meaning that a greedy mind takes the objective fields of the three times as its object and binds the objective fields of the three times. The Tattvasiddhi masters explain: When the prior three minds have not yet given rise to greed or anger, they are merely indeterminate, and are called pure; afterwards, the formation skandha gives rise to afflictions that defile the prior three minds, which is called impure. This is merely defilement in anterior-posterior succession; there is no simultaneous defilement. Although there are simultaneous and non-simultaneous [theories], both ultimately explain that there is affliction defiling the mind, which is refuted by the present treatise master.

Question: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says: "The intrinsically pure mind is defiled by adventitious afflictions; this is difficult to understand." Is this not identical to the old view?
Answer: This explains that the sentient being's mind is fundamentally pure, yet in sentient beings it becomes impure; although in sentient beings it becomes impure, it has never been impure—this is undefiled yet defiled, defiled yet undefiled—hence it is said to be "difficult to understand." It does not mean there are real afflictions that defile the mind.

Question: Are afflictions the mind, or not the mind?
Answer: The Sarvāstivādins and the Tattvasiddhi both explain that afflictions are mental dharmas, associated with the mind. The Vibhajyavādins explain that afflictions are not associated with the mind, as stated at the end of the "Chapter on Fetters" in the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya. Now, whether associated or unassociated, both ultimately hold that afflictions defile the mind, and are likewise refuted by the present treatise.

Question: The text refutes all three poisons; why is the chapter titled only refuting passion and the impassioned?
Answer: The three poisons all blacken practitioners, hence they are called "passion" (raja/rāga). Furthermore, passion is the foremost of the three poisons. Moreover, the fundamental limits of birth-and-death are two: ignorance and craving. Ignorance is the root of the prior part, which having already arisen cannot be treated; craving is the root of the posterior part. The treatise master, out of compassion, wishes to prevent [sentient beings] from giving rise to the three causes so that they may escape the two effects; therefore he specifically refutes passion.

Question: The first among the three poisons is greed (lobha); why is it now called passion (rāga)?
Answer: Although greed is defiling, passion pervades the three realms, whereas greed is only in the desire realm. Now, wishing to cure the defilements of the three realms comprehensively, he refutes passion. Furthermore, greed impassions persons, hence it is called passion.