中觀論疏 6.3

6.3

上來七品一周略破人法明大乘觀行，此下十品重破人法明大乘觀行。略破為利根人說，重破為鈍根人說。問：何以知前略破、今重破耶？答：以前後二文證之，知有二周之說。〈三相品〉末二偈有三雙：一偈洗有為無為一切法體、一偈破有為無為一切名字，名體既無則人法悉空，故是一周。次一偈明法無從即法說門破，一偈舉喻謂譬喻門破，法譬既圓則一周究竟。次一偈結論破無三相所以，一偈明經說有三相所由，既釋論會經，故是一周究竟。後文證者，長行序云「上來品品破一切法悉無有餘，汝著心深故今當重說。」既有重說之言，即知必是一周破也。所以破作作者，一切眾生無始來謂有善惡無記，人作善惡無記業。今撿無三人造三業，悟無生畢竟空，得解脫也。此意品品通用之。十品為二：初四品正破人、傍破法，次六品正破法、傍破人。所以爾者，一依觀門次第。人無生易得故初正破人，法無生難得故後破法。二此周為鈍根人，故前破人後破法也。又二周互現，前周正破法後傍破人，利根內學人多知無人少知無法。又內學人多計法少計人，十八部中唯犢子計人耳。又前周從本至末，故前破法，法是人本；後周從末至本，人是法末。互現文也。又前周約說門次第，多從深至淺；後門據行門次第，從淺至深。四品破人、六品破法者，人易法難故也。〈作作者〉破人法之用，〈本住品〉破人法體，〈燃可燃〉舉喻合破體用，〈本際品〉窮人法之原，故四品正破人傍破法也。又初品通破即離二我，但破即為正，如先尼計作者是即陰，次品正破離陰計我。〈燃可燃品〉通破即離，亦即離如是五句。〈本際〉釋疑，外疑云：若三品無人法者，《無本際經》何故說有？故名釋疑。問曰：何故次三相後破作作者耶？答：上破有為無為一切悉空。外人云：三相是有為，有為名起作，故舉作作者證有三相。此是其傍意也。言正意者，從〈因緣品〉至〈五陰品〉破諸法有，明空解脫門。從〈六種〉至〈三相〉求一切相不可得，名無相解脫門。從此品竟一論末，求作者不可得，明無作解脫門。故次〈三相品〉末破作作者也。外人云：若〈三相品〉明有為無為一切空者，今現在造作施為云何一切空耶？外謂有六道眾生是作者，身口意是所用作法，起罪、福、不動三業名為作業，得六道苦樂名果報也。三乘人為作者，身口意為所用法，起三乘業為作業，得三乘果為果報。現見九道如此，云何言畢竟空耶？又三空次第者，前說空門竟，論主歎美空，說無相門明不取空相，今明無作正明菩薩生心動念即是作業，謂有作空無相觀之，菩薩為作者，作此觀得佛道為果報。故此一門可窮下極上，極上則法雲已還，下謂破世間造作施為皆不可得也。二十七品立名有四：一從法受名，如〈情〉、〈陰〉之流；二從人受稱，如〈本住品〉等；三從譬立名，如〈燃可燃品〉；四人法合目，如〈作作者品〉。問：作作者染染者，此有何異？答：染染者但是意地，唯明不善；作作者通於三業及以三性。又染染者但是煩惱門，作作者明於業門。又染染者引經立義；作作者引事立義，謂現見造作施為之事也。問：今破作作者，與十六知見中作作者何異？答：十六知見但是破外道義；今此中通破世間外道小乘大乘，身口意一豪以有所得心有所造作，悉入此門破也。問：何以故破一切造作耶？答：《大品經》云「菩薩有麁細二業：若見有身口意名為麁業，不得身口意名為細業。」菩薩離於麁業，今欲辨菩薩清淨業，故破一切有所得造作施為也。二者《涅槃》云「耆婆語世王云：大王若聞佛說無作無受，王之重罪即得清淨。」無作者，謂無人作、無法作。無受者，謂無人受、無法受。又經中略標利根即解，末世罪重故論主廣破之。是以此品初明無作作者、後辨無受受者，即是諸方等經清淨懺悔法。四依菩薩憐愍末世造罪眾生，故申十方佛方等大懺也。

The preceding seven chapters form one cycle that briefly refutes person and phenomena to clarify the Mahāyāna contemplative practice; the ten chapters below repeatedly refute person and phenomena to clarify the Mahāyāna contemplative practice. The brief refutation was spoken for those of sharp faculties; the repeated refutation was spoken for those of dull faculties. Question: How do we know that the preceding was a brief refutation and the present is a repeated refutation? Answer: By taking the two passages before and after as evidence, we know there are expositions in two cycles. The final two verses of the "Examination of the Three Characteristics" contain three pairs: one verse washes away all entities of the conditioned and unconditioned; one verse refutes all names of the conditioned and unconditioned. Since both names and entities are non-existent, person and phenomena are completely empty; hence this is one cycle. The next verse clarifies that phenomena have nothing from which they originate, refuting from the gate of direct exposition of phenomena; one verse adduces an analogy, refuting through the gate of metaphorical comparison. Phenomena and analogy being complete, the one cycle is finalized. The next verse concludes the reason why the refutation establishes the absence of the three characteristics; one verse clarifies the reason why the sūtras speak of the existence of the three characteristics. Since the treatise both explains the treatise and harmonizes with the sūtras, this is the completion of one cycle. As for the evidence from the subsequent text, the prose preface states: "Heretofore, each chapter has refuted all phenomena without exception; but because your mind of attachment is deep, I shall now explain them again." Since there are the words "explain them again", we know it must be a refutation in another cycle. As for the reason to refute action and agent: from beginningless time all sentient beings have believed that good, evil, and indeterminate [natures] exist, and that a person performs good, evil, and indeterminate karma. Now, examining that there are no three persons performing three karmas, one awakens to the unarisen, ultimate emptiness and attains liberation. This meaning applies generally throughout each chapter. The ten chapters comprise two parts: the first four chapters primarily refute the person and secondarily refute phenomena; the subsequent six chapters primarily refute phenomena and secondarily refute the person. The reason for this is, first, in accordance with the sequence of the gates of contemplation. Because the non-arising of the person is easy to attain, it primarily refutes the person first; because the non-arising of phenomena is difficult to attain, it refutes phenomena afterward. Second, this cycle is for people of dull faculties; hence it refutes the person first and refutes phenomena afterward. Furthermore, the two cycles mutually manifest each other: the previous cycle primarily refuted phenomena and secondarily refuted the person. Inner students of sharp faculties mostly know there is no person, but few know there are no phenomena. Moreover, inner students mostly posit phenomena and rarely posit a person; among the eighteen schools, only the Vātsīputrīya posit a person. Furthermore, the previous cycle went from the fundamental to the derivative; therefore it refuted phenomena first, as phenomena are the root of the person; the subsequent cycle goes from the derivative to the fundamental, as the person is the branch of phenomena. This is the text's mutual manifestation. Furthermore, the previous cycle was based on the sequence of the gates of teaching, mostly going from deep to shallow; the subsequent gate is based on the sequence of the gates of practice, going from shallow to deep. That four chapters refute the person and six chapters refute phenomena is because the person is easy and phenomena are difficult. "Examination of Action and Agent" refutes the functioning of person and phenomena; "Examination of the Prior Entity" refutes the entity of person and phenomena; "Examination of Fire and Fuel" adduces an analogy to jointly refute entity and functioning; "Examination of the Prior Limit" penetrates to the source of person and phenomena. Thus the four chapters primarily refute the person and secondarily refute phenomena. Furthermore, the first chapter broadly refutes both the identical and separate selves, but refuting the identical is primary—as Śreṇika posited the agent as identical with the aggregates; the next chapter primarily refutes positing a self separate from the aggregates. The "Examination of Fire and Fuel" broadly refutes both identical and separate, and also the five propositions of identity and difference. "Examination of the Prior Limit" resolves doubts: an outsider doubts, "If these three chapters have no person and no phenomena, why does the Anamatagga-sūtra speak of their existence?" Hence it is called resolving doubts. Question: Why is action and agent refuted right after the three characteristics? Answer: Above, the conditioned and unconditioned were refuted as entirely empty. The outsider says: the three characteristics are conditioned; conditioned means arising and acting, so action and agent are adduced to prove the existence of the three characteristics. This is its secondary meaning. As for the primary meaning: from the "Examination of Causes and Conditions" to the "Examination of the Five Aggregates", the existence of phenomena is refuted, clarifying the gate of liberation of emptiness. From the "Examination of the Six Elements" to the "Examination of the Three Characteristics", seeking all characteristics they cannot be found; this is called the gate of liberation of signlessness. From this chapter to the very end of the treatise, seeking an agent it cannot be found; this clarifies the gate of liberation of wishlessness. Therefore, following the end of the "Examination of the Three Characteristics", action and agent are refuted. The outsider says: If the "Examination of the Three Characteristics" clarifies that the conditioned and unconditioned are all empty, how can current actions, operations, and conduct all be empty? The outsider believes that sentient beings of the six destinies are agents; body, speech, and mind are the methods of action employed; giving rise to the three karmas of sin, merit, and the immovable is called performing karma; and obtaining the suffering and pleasure of the six destinies is called karmic retribution. Persons of the three vehicles are agents; body, speech, and mind are the methods employed; giving rise to the karma of the three vehicles is performing karma; and obtaining the fruit of the three vehicles is karmic retribution. One presently observes that the nine realms are like this; how can you say they are ultimately empty? Furthermore, as for the sequence of the three emptinesses: previously, having finished explaining the gate of emptiness, the treatise master praised emptiness and explained the gate of signlessness to clarify not grasping at the characteristic of emptiness. Now, explaining wishlessness directly clarifies that when a bodhisattva gives rise to a thought or moves a mental state, that itself is performing karma; positing that there is a contemplation of emptiness and signlessness, the bodhisattva is the agent, and performing this contemplation to attain the Buddha path is the karmic retribution. Therefore this single gate can penetrate from the lowest to the utmost: the utmost refers to prior to the Dharma Cloud [bhūmi]; the lowest refers to refuting the world's actions, operations, and conduct as all unfindable. The twenty-seven chapters derive their titles in four ways: first, receiving a name from phenomena, such as the chapters on the sense faculties and aggregates; second, taking an appellation from a person, such as the "Examination of the Prior Entity" and so forth; third, establishing a name from an analogy, such as the "Examination of Fire and Fuel"; fourth, combining person and phenomena under a single designation, such as the "Examination of Action and Agent". Question: Between action and agent, and defilement and the defiled, what difference is there? Answer: Defilement and the defiled is solely the mental ground and clarifies only what is unwholesome; action and agent extends across the three karmas and across the three natures. Furthermore, defilement and the defiled is solely the gate of afflictions, whereas action and agent clarifies the gate of karma. Furthermore, defilement and the defiled cites sūtras to establish its thesis; action and agent cites concrete affairs to establish its thesis, meaning the presently observed matters of actions, operations, and conduct. Question: What is the difference between refuting action and agent now, and the agent among the sixteen views? Answer: The sixteen views merely refute non-Buddhist doctrines; what is here broadly refutes worldly, non-Buddhist, Hīnayāna, and Mahāyāna views—wherever there is the slightest action produced with a mind of grasping, all are included in this gate to be refuted. Question: Why refute all activity? Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "A bodhisattva has coarse and subtle karmas: seeing body, speech, and mind is called coarse karma; not apprehending body, speech, and mind is called subtle karma." A bodhisattva is free from coarse karma; now, desiring to delineate the bodhisattva's pure karma, all grasping activity and conduct are refuted. Second, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "Jīvaka said to King Ajātaśatru: 'Great King, if you hear the Buddha teach no action and no experiencer, your grave sin will immediately be purified.'" "No action" means there is no person who acts and no phenomenon that acts. "No experiencer" means there is no person who experiences and no phenomenon that experiences. Furthermore, the sūtra briefly indicated this and those of sharp faculties immediately understood; but because sins in the final age are grave, the treatise master broadly refutes them. Therefore, this chapter first clarifies no action and no agent, and later distinguishes no experiencing and no experiencer; this is precisely the pure repentance practice of the various Vaipulya sūtras. Bodhisattvas of the four reliances pity the sin-committing sentient beings of the final age, and therefore elucidate the great Vaipulya repentance of the Buddhas of the ten directions.