中觀論疏 6.24

6.24

「問曰燃可燃相待」下，第二相待門破。從論初已來多破因成假義，此一章破相待假也。所以破相待者，相待通生死涅槃、三乘一乘等萬義，相待若成萬義成、相待若壞一切皆壞。但內外大小謂實有相待，於中起乎愛見成於業苦，論主求相待無從，則顯煩惱使淨，故破相待也。前問、次答。問云：有燃可燃云何言一？相待而成豈可言異？亦得以相故不一、待故不異，勉一異難也。但相待多門，有通別、定不定、一法二法。通待者，若長待不長，自長之外並是不長。別待者，如長待短。一師亦名此為疎密相待，若長短相待名為疎待，長待不長翻是密待，以即長論不長故，不長望長此即為密。長短相望即是二法，是以名疎。故山中舊語云：「成瓶之不瓶，成青之不青。」即指瓶為不瓶，故不瓶成瓶也。定待者，如生死待涅槃及色心相待，名為定待。不定待者，如五尺形一丈為短、待三尺為長，名不定待。一法待者，如一人亦父亦子。二法待者，如長短兩物。今此四偈遍破一切相待義。此四偈意多，今且開二章：初兩偈破成待、次兩偈破待成。破成待者，如內外大小乘人皆言：前有長短體成，後論其相待。次待成者，異三論師云：非前有長短然後相待，但明由相待故有於長短。此之二門總攝一切相待義盡，破此二宗諸待皆壞。二門各二。初門二者，前偈定開即是破、第二偈受定，正破成待。定開為二：上半雙牒、下半正定。此義顯在長行，今略釋之。若前有可燃、後有燃，則墮上異過；前燃後可燃亦爾。既其前後則便相離，如其相離還是異義，便非待也。若一時，則薪火並有，亦不須相待。若薪火俱無，無則無物，亦無有待。長行有四，謂雙牒、雙定、雙難、雙結。雙牒如文。「是中」下，第二定。「今若因」下，第三難。難中為二：初難可燃在前，以惑人多計故也。次例難燃在前也。難中有四：一失因、二不成、三不前、四同壞。初如文。「若燃不燃」下，第二不成。恐外人受論主可燃失因，而可燃得成。是故今明若燃不燃可燃，則可燃不成。「又可燃不在餘處」下，第三明可燃不前。要在燃處方名可燃，實不在餘處，豈在前耶？餘處者，異火處也，則奪其在前義也。初縱在前，故有失因不成之過，故今次奪之。「若可燃不成」下，第四同壞難。「若先燃後有可燃」下，第二次破於燃，亦有四過，如上說也。「是故」下，第四雙結。「復次若因可燃燃」下，第二受定，破成待義。偈為二：上半明燃有重成過、下半明可燃有無燃過。此偈上下兩半意者，若前有燃體待於可燃，則招二過：一者燃有重成之咎、二者可燃有不成之過。前有可燃體後待於燃，亦有兩過。上半為二：初句牒待、次句正辨重成。重成者，未待可燃已有燃體，此是一成。次將燃復待可燃，復是一成故。未待已成，後待更成，故重成也。問：重成有何過？答：唯一物但應一成，若重成便應二物。又一物而有再成，一成應有兩物，無有兩物一成，何有一物二成耶？下半明可燃有不成過者，既將燃待可燃，必先有可燃，則可燃不成，以汝待故方成；今可燃不待，故可燃不成。故燃可燃相待，燃有重成、可燃無成也。和上又云：當燃待可燃時，燃有重成之過、可燃有失待之咎。重成如上。失待者，汝燃無待可燃，當知先已有可燃。既先有，則知不待燃而有，故是失待也。「復次若法有待成」下，第二兩偈破待故成。亦二：初正破、次釋破。又初是都無破、後是研竅破。所以有此破來者，外云：若成竟更待，燃有重成，可燃有失待過。今以待故方成、未待未成，則唯有一成。燃既待故成，無有重成，故可燃還待燃故成。燃故成則可燃無失待過，是故破待成也。問：何以知破待成？答：偈云「若法有待成」，則知是待故成也。成論師云：上半世諦，下半真諦。中假師云：上半不二二，下半二不二。此與舊何異？他亦云：不二而二，二諦引物；二而不二，即一中道。今明此是何所破義？偈二上半牒、下半破。「若法有待成」者，燃法待可燃成也。「是法還成待」者，是燃法還成可燃家待也。「今則無因待」者，破可燃為燃因也。若自有可燃體，不因於燃，可燃為燃作因耳，今可燃不能自有，待燃方有，何能為燃作因耶？故今則無因待也。「亦無所成法」者，此破燃也。若有可燃為燃因，燃因之而得成；既無可燃為燃因，云何燃因之而得成？故云亦無所成法也。今更一勢傳破釋之。若法有待成者，救重成也。若未待前成，可有重成；今待方成，故無重成。是法還成待者，外人防難也。汝待他成，他應自成，是故釋云：我還成他作待，故他不自成。今則無因待者，論主破也。汝有自體，可為他作因；今因他而有，無有自體，云何為他作因？故云今則無因待。亦無所成法者，汝既不能為他作因，云何有為他是汝之果？故無所成法也。又有此偈來者，前是縱待，今是奪待。前縱待者，縱其以長待短，故長墮重成。今奪待，若汝長短互待，則互失二因，都無兩界，云何待耶？又四偈為五：一雙定、二雙破、三雙救、四雙難、五雙結。雙定如文。次偈雙破者，若先已有長待短，則長有重成、短有失待。三雙通者，若法有待成，通上半重成難。是法還成待，通下半失待難也。今則無因待，第四雙難兩法互待，則俱無兩因、俱無二果。次後一偈此是雙結，有無二門俱無相待也。又初偈雙定前後。若先有長而待短，則長失待；若前無長，以何待短？故前後二門俱無相待。次兩偈雙釋前後。初偈釋前有長而待短，則長墮重成、短墮失待。次偈釋先無長，待短方有，則長短俱無因，長短並失果。後之一偈次雙結成前二偈，上半結前無長、下半結前有長。偈具含諸意，宜執詳文，勿謂其煩也。

From “Question: Fire and fuel are mutually dependent” onward is the second [section], refutation through the approach of mutual dependence. From the beginning of the treatise up to this point, it has mostly refuted the meaning of provisional designations established through causes (yīnchéng jiǎ); this one chapter refutes provisional designations based on mutual dependence (xiāngdài jiǎ). The reason mutual dependence is refuted is that mutual dependence extends to the myriad meanings, such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the three vehicles and the single vehicle: if mutual dependence is established, the myriad meanings are established; if mutual dependence is dismantled, all are dismantled. However, internal and external [teachings], Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, maintain that mutual dependence really exists, and within it they give rise to craving and views, creating karma and suffering. The treatise master seeks mutual dependence and finds no basis for it, thereby demonstrating that the defilements and predispositions are purifiable; hence he refutes mutual dependence. First comes the question, then the answer. The question says: "Given that there are fire and fuel, how could one call them identical? Being established through mutual dependence, how could they be said to be different?" One may also say that because of mutual [relation] they are not identical, and because of dependence they are not different, thereby escaping the difficulties of identity and difference. But mutual dependence has many modes: general and particular, fixed and non-fixed, one dharma and two dharmas. General dependence: for example, when the long depends on the non-long, everything other than the long itself is non-long. Particular dependence: as the long depends on the short. One teacher also terms this "distant and intimate mutual dependence": if long and short depend on one another, this is called distant dependence; when the long depends on the non-long, by contrast this is intimate dependence, because it addresses the non-long in terms of the long itself, so the non-long relative to the long is intimate. When long and short are viewed relative to each other, they are two dharmas; therefore it is called distant. Thus an old saying in the mountains says: "The non-vase establishes the vase; the non-blue establishes the blue." This points directly to the vase as the non-vase, so the non-vase establishes the vase. Fixed dependence: as saṃsāra depending on nirvāṇa, or form and mind depending on each other, is called fixed dependence. Non-fixed dependence: as a five-foot body is short relative to one ten feet long, but long relative to one three feet long; this is called non-fixed dependence. Single-dharma dependence: as one person is both a father and a son. Two-dharma dependence: as two objects, long and short. Now, these four verses comprehensively refute all senses of mutual dependence. These four verses contain many ideas; for now, they are divided into two sections: the first two verses refute establishment [prior to] dependence (chéng dài), and the next two verses refute establishment through dependence (dài chéng). Refuting establishment [prior to] dependence: as proponents of both internal and external [systems], Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, all say that the substances of long and short are established beforehand, and only afterward is their mutual dependence discussed. Next, refuting establishment through dependence: a dissenting Sanlun master says that it is not that long and short exist beforehand and are dependent only afterward, but simply clarifies that because of mutual dependence, there are long and short. These two approaches fully encompass all meanings of mutual dependence; by refuting these two traditions, all forms of dependence are demolished. Each of the two approaches has two parts. As for the two parts of the first approach: the first verse establishes the alternatives, which constitutes the refutation; the second verse accepts the determination and directly refutes establishment [prior to] dependence. Establishing the alternatives is twofold: the first half of the verse presents both terms, and the second half formally fixes the alternatives. This meaning is manifest in the prose commentary; here it is explained in brief: if there is fuel first and fire afterward, one falls into the aforementioned fault of difference; the same applies if fire is first and fuel afterward. If they are sequential, they are separate; if they are separate, this remains the sense of difference, and thus is not dependence. If they are simultaneous, then both fuel and fire exist together, and they likewise do not need to depend on each other. If both fuel and fire are absent, then being non-existent there is no entity, and there is likewise no dependence. The prose commentary has four parts: presenting both, determining both, challenging both, and concluding both. Presenting both is as in the text. From “Herein” onward is the second, determining both. From “Now if depending on” onward is the third, challenging both. Within the challenge there are two parts: first, challenging fuel being prior, because confused people mostly assert this; next, challenging by analogy fire being prior. Within the challenge there are four [points]: first, loss of a cause; second, non-establishment; third, not being prior; fourth, sharing the same destruction. The first is as in the text. From “If burning does not burn” onward is the second, non-establishment. Fearing that the opponent might grant the treatise master that fuel loses its cause yet fuel is established, he therefore now clarifies that if burning does not burn fuel, then fuel is not established. From “Moreover, fuel is not elsewhere” onward is the third, clarifying that fuel is not prior. Only at the site of burning is it called fuel; it is truly not anywhere else—how could it be prior? "Elsewhere" means a place distinct from fire; thus it takes away the claim that it is prior. At first, conceding that it is prior led to the faults of losing its cause and non-establishment; therefore he now takes it away. From “If fuel is not established” onward is the fourth, the challenge of shared destruction. From “If fire is first and afterward there is fuel” onward is the second, refuting fire; this also has four faults, as explained above. From “Therefore” onward is the fourth, concluding both. From “Furthermore, if fire depends on fuel” onward is the second, accepting the determination to refute the meaning of establishment [prior to] dependence. The verse has two parts: the first half shows the fault of fire being repeatedly established; the second half shows the fault of fuel lacking fire. The intention of the two halves of this verse is that if an entity of fire exists beforehand and depends on fuel, this incurs two faults: first, the fault of fire being repeatedly established; second, the fault of fuel not being established. If an entity of fuel exists beforehand and afterward depends on fire, it likewise has two faults. The first half has two parts: the first line takes up dependence, and the second line directly demonstrates repeated establishment. Repeated establishment: having an entity of fire prior to depending on fuel is one establishment; subsequently taking fire to depend again on fuel is yet another establishment. Having already been established prior to dependence, it is established once more through subsequent dependence; hence it is repeatedly established. Question: What fault is there in repeated establishment? Answer: A single thing should have only a single establishment; if it is repeatedly established, there should be two things. Furthermore, if one thing has a second establishment, a single establishment should correspond to two things; since there are not two things in a single establishment, how could there be two establishments for one thing? As for the second half demonstrating the fault of fuel not being established: since taking fire to depend on fuel requires that there must first be fuel, then fuel is not established, for according to you it is only established by dependence; now fuel does not depend, so fuel is not established. Therefore, when fire and fuel are mutually dependent, fire has repeated establishment and fuel has non-establishment. The preceptor also said: when fire depends on fuel, fire has the fault of repeated establishment, and fuel has the blame of losing dependence. Repeated establishment is as above. Losing dependence: if your fire does not depend on fuel, know that fuel must already exist beforehand; since it already exists beforehand, know that it exists without depending on fire, and hence this is losing dependence. From “Furthermore, if a dharma is established through dependence” onward, the next two verses refute establishment through dependence. This also has two parts: first, direct refutation; second, explaining the refutation. Moreover, the first is a refutation of total non-existence, and the second is an analytical refutation. The reason this refutation comes up is that the opponent says: "If, having already been established, it depends further, fire has repeated establishment and fuel has the fault of losing dependence. Now, it is established only through dependence, and before it depends it is not yet established; thus there is only a single establishment. Since fire is established through dependence, there is no repeated establishment, and fuel in turn is established through depending on fire. Being established through fire, fuel has no fault of losing dependence." For this reason, establishment through dependence is refuted. Question: How is it known that it refutes establishment through dependence? Answer: The verse says, "If a dharma is established through dependence," so one knows that it is established through dependence. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: the first half of the verse is conventional truth, and the second half is ultimate truth. The masters of the middle and provisional say: the first half is the two that are non-dual, and the second half is the non-dual that is two. How is this different from the old [interpretations]? Others also say: non-dual yet two—the two truths guide sentient beings; two yet non-dual—this is the one middle way. Now we clarify: what sense is being refuted here? The verse has two parts: the first half takes up [the assertion], and the second half refutes it. "If a dharma is established through dependence": the dharma of fire is established depending on fuel. "This dharma in turn establishes that which is depended upon": this dharma of fire in turn establishes what fuel depends upon. "Now there is no dependence on a cause": this refutes fuel being the cause of fire. If fuel possessed its own intrinsic substance and did not depend on fire, fuel could serve as a cause for fire; now fuel cannot exist of itself and exists only dependent on fire, so how could it serve as a cause for fire? Hence, "now there is no dependence on a cause." "Nor is there any dharma that is established": this refutes fire. If there were fuel to serve as the cause of fire, fire could be established depending on it; since there is no fuel to serve as the cause of fire, how could fire be established depending on it? Hence it says: "nor is there any dharma that is established." Now we explain it by another line of refutation. "If a dharma is established through dependence": this rescues against repeated establishment. If it were established prior to depending, there could be repeated establishment; now it is established only upon depending, so there is no repeated establishment. "This dharma in turn establishes that which is depended upon": this is the opponent warding off the objection. [The opponent says:] If you depend on the other to be established, the other should be established by itself; therefore it is explained: "I in turn establish the other as what is depended upon, so the other is not established by itself." "Now there is no dependence on a cause": this is the treatise master's refutation. If you had your own substance, you could serve as a cause for the other; now, existing by depending on the other, you have no substance of your own—how could you serve as a cause for the other? Hence it says: "now there is no dependence on a cause." "Nor is there any dharma that is established": since you cannot serve as a cause for the other, how could there be what is served by the other as your effect? Hence there is no dharma that is established. Furthermore, the reason this verse comes up is that the previous [argument] was a refutation by concession of dependence, while this one is a refutation by stripping away dependence. The previous concession of dependence: conceding that long depends on short, long therefore fell into repeated establishment. Now, stripping away dependence: if your long and short depend mutually on each other, they mutually lose both causes, and neither realm exists at all—how could they depend? Furthermore, the four verses comprise five parts: first, determining both; second, refuting both; third, rescuing both; fourth, challenging both; fifth, concluding both. Determining both is as in the text. As for the next verse refuting both: if long already exists beforehand and depends on short, then long has repeated establishment and short loses dependence. As for the third, clearing both: "If a dharma is established through dependence" clears the challenge of repeated establishment in the first half; "This dharma in turn establishes that which is depended upon" clears the challenge of losing dependence in the second half. "Now there is no dependence on a cause" is the fourth, challenging both: if two dharmas mutually depend, then both lack two causes and both lose two effects. The next verse after that is the fifth, concluding both: under both approaches of existence and non-existence, there is no mutual dependence whatsoever. Furthermore, the first verse determines both before and after: if long exists beforehand and depends on short, then long loses dependence; if long does not exist beforehand, by means of what could it depend on short? Therefore, under both approaches of before and after, there is no mutual dependence. The next two verses explain both before and after: the first verse explains that if long exists beforehand and depends on short, long falls into repeated establishment and short falls into losing dependence. The next verse explains that if long does not exist beforehand and exists only dependent on short, then both long and short lack a cause, and both long and short lose their effect. The final verse then concludes both, establishing the preceding two verses: the first half concludes the non-existence of long beforehand, and the second half concludes the existence of long beforehand. The verses contain all these meanings; one should hold to and examine the text closely, and not deem it tedious.