中觀論疏 6.5

6.5

長行初釋偈本，從「不決定」已下，顯論主不破人法俱無意。二俱是有，有尚無作。二俱是無，無云何有作？故不須破無也。「復次若定有作者」下，第二重顯人法俱有墮無因過，即是初章四對。若有人可人，有法可法。有人可人，人不因法；有法可法，法不因人。故人是自人、法是自法，故名無因也。然須細心觀文意，若有一豪人體則不因法，法亦爾。如是長短、生死、涅槃，有一豪無相因，無相因則破因緣、破中道也。若無一豪人法，亦無可相因。可謂正觀微妙、虛妄易傾也。「問曰」下，生第三傳顯無因過也。答中三偈為二：初別明無因過、次半行總結。別明中有十過，謂因果、人法、罪福，及罪福報、世出世也。「則無因無果」者，人不因法則無法因，無法因則無人，是果法亦爾。問：前已明無因果，何故復云無罪福及罪福報耶？答：前明無外法中瓶等因果，後明無內法因果。又約數人義，後但明無報因因果，前通明餘五因因果。成實亦爾，後明無報因因果，前明習因因果及依因因果也。問：論文或言天涅槃或言大涅槃，何者是耶？答大是矣，前罪福報已說天報竟故也。長行為二：初釋人法俱有墮無因，無因有十過。從「問曰」已下，顯論主但明人法俱有之過，不彰俱無失意也。俱有尚有過，況俱無耶，故不須顯無之失也。又青目欲具彰俱有俱無之失，發下破半有半無之端也。

The prose first explains the root verse. From "not definite" onward, it shows the treatise master's intention not to refute that person and phenomena both do not exist. Even when both exist, existence still lacks action; when both do not exist, how could non-existence have action? Therefore, it is not necessary to refute non-existence. From "Furthermore, if there is definitely an agent" onward is the second part, reaffirming that person and phenomena both existing falls into the fault of causelessness, which is the four pairs of the initial section. If there is a person that can be a person, there is a phenomenon that can be a phenomenon. If there is a person that can be a person, the person is not dependent on phenomena; if there is a phenomenon that can be a phenomenon, the phenomenon is not dependent on the person. Therefore, the person is an independent person, and the phenomenon is an independent phenomenon; hence it is called "causeless." Yet one must observe the meaning of the text with a refined mind: if there is a hair's breadth of person-substance, then it does not depend on phenomena; phenomena are also like this. Likewise with long and short, birth-and-death, and nirvāṇa: if there is a hair's breadth without mutual dependence, lacking mutual dependence then refutes causes and conditions and refutes the middle way. If there is not a hair's breadth of person and phenomena, there is also nothing that can be mutually dependent. It can be said that the correct contemplation is subtle and wondrous, and false delusion easily collapses. From "The question says" onward generates the third part, successively revealing the fault of causelessness. The three verses in the reply have two parts: first, distinct clarification of the fault of causelessness; next, half a line summarising it. In the distinct clarification there are ten faults, namely cause and effect, person and phenomena, sin and merit, retribution of sin and merit, and mundane and supramundane. "Then there is neither cause nor effect": if a person is not dependent on phenomena, there is no cause of phenomena; if there is no cause of phenomena, there is no person, and the effect and phenomena are also like this. Question: Earlier it already clarified that there is no cause and effect, why does it again say there is no sin and merit, and no retribution of sin and merit? Answer: Earlier it clarified the absence of cause and effect among external phenomena such as a vase; later it clarified the absence of cause and effect of internal phenomena. Furthermore, according to the masters of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, the latter only clarifies the absence of cause and effect of retribution causes, while the former generally clarifies the cause and effect of the remaining five causes. The Tattvasiddhi is also like this: the latter clarifies the cause and effect of retribution causes, while the former clarifies the cause and effect of habitual causes and relying causes. Question: The text of the treatise in some versions says "Heavenly Nirvāṇa" and in some says "Great Nirvāṇa," which one is correct? Answer: "Great" is correct, because earlier the retribution of sin and merit had already finished explaining heavenly retribution. The prose has two parts: first, it explains that person and phenomena both existing falls into causelessness, and causelessness has ten faults. From "The question says" onward, it shows that the treatise master only clarifies the fault of person and phenomena both existing, without displaying the error of both not existing. Even both existing still has faults, how much more so both not existing! Therefore, it is not necessary to reveal the error of non-existence. Furthermore, Piṅgala wished to fully display the errors of both existing and both not existing, initiating the following refutation of half-existing and half-not-existing.