中觀論疏 6.8

6.8

「作者不作定」下，第四一三門。上來是離破，今是合破。兩偈為二：初偈明一人不能作三業、次偈明三人不能作一業。一人不作三業者，三種中隨舉一人，或有人、或無人、或半有半無人。有人不作三業者，人是有、業既無，不可作；業已有，不須作；半有同有、半無同無。次偈三人不能作一業者，三人中隨一人也。「問曰若無作無作者」，自上已來破有人法見，此下第二破無人法見。若作申破意，上來破病，今申經也。〈三相品〉末一偈申經、七品破執，良以執病既重，前須廣破未得，更為其作義，且引幻化曉之。至〈作者品〉執病稍除，品品之中時出一兩要句，令其識佛經因緣假名義也。就文為二：初問、次答。問：今外道過論主無因，與上論主過外人無因，有何異？答：外人前有人有法，人法各成不須相因，故墮無因；今明都無人法，故無可相因，所以為異。「答曰是業從眾緣生」下，第二答，前長行、次偈。破此見凡有三勢：一云汝有因既不成，豈得有無因？如是五句悉不可得。二有無並出汝心，向謂有，既覓有無從，便復見無；此並是汝有汝無，非關我也。三者上來明無者，無汝所見五種人法耳，非無假名因緣人法也。此之一答，意有多門：一者上明無人無法則破其有見，今明假名人法接其斷心，顯非有非無、非斷非常之義。二者上明非人非法即是中道，今明因緣人法秤為假名，此即是假前中、中後假義。三者上明非人非法即是性空，今明因緣人法即是因緣空，故得有人法。故山中舊云：「於性空中立一切法。」四者上明無人法，此明世諦破性說空，即是世諦中道；今明因緣人法即是中道，世諦因緣人法未曾人法，即是非人非法，名因緣空，即是真諦中道。問：此但明因緣人法，何處有非人非法文耶？答：文顯在偈後長行。五者上明無五種人法即是破病，今明因緣人法即是申經。偈分為二：初有三句明有因緣人法。「更無有餘事」一句，此辨更無外人五種人法。一師初章中假語，並是依〈作者品〉此文作之。初章四對之失，即是前過外人人法不相因義；四對之得，即是此文人法相因義。故初章語起自此文也。中假起此品者，明外人性人法不可得，非人非法，即是假前中義。因緣人法，即中前假義。因緣人法即是非人非法，名假後中義。非人非法假名人法，即中後假義。而三論師雖誦初章中假之言，而不知文處，故今略示之。長行云「業先決定無」者，此是業先無決定耳，餘並易知。復次「如破作作者」下，第二次破受受者，生起如前。

From “An agent does not perform what is determinate” onward is the fourth gateway, [examining] the one and the three. The preceding was a separate refutation; this is a combined refutation. The two verses comprise two [sections]: the first verse explains that one person cannot perform three kinds of karma; the next verse explains that three persons cannot perform one kind of karma. “One person does not perform three kinds of karma” means taking any one person among the three kinds—either an existent person, a non-existent person, or a half-existent and half-non-existent person. An existent person not performing the three kinds of karma means: since the person is existent, karma is already non-existent and cannot be performed; karma already exists and need not be performed; half-existent is the same as existent, and half-non-existent is the same as non-existent. In the next verse, “three persons cannot perform one karma” refers to any [karma] among the three persons. “Question: If there is no action and no agent” onward: hitherto the view of existent person and dharmas has been refuted; from here below is the second [part], refuting the view of no person and dharmas. If treated as the intention of elucidating and refuting: the preceding was refuting errors, and now it is elucidating the sūtras. The final verse of Chapter [7, “Examination of the] Three Characteristics,” elucidated the sūtras, and seven chapters refuted attachments. Indeed, because the illness of attachment was so severe, it first had to be extensively refuted; before that was done, it was not yet possible to present the meaning of action for them, so illusions and transformations were provisionally adduced to enlighten them. When reaching the Chapter on the Agent, the illness of attachment was gradually eliminated, so in each chapter one or two essential phrases occasionally appear, enabling them to recognise the sūtras' meaning of dependent origination and provisional designation. The text has two parts: first the question, then the answer. Question: What is the difference between the heterodox master's faulting the treatise master here for [advocating] causelessness, and the treatise master's faulting the opponent above for causelessness? Answer: Previously, the opponent held that the person and dharmas exist; person and dharmas were each established without needing to depend on each other, and thus fell into causelessness. Now it is explained that there is no person or dharma at all, so there is nothing that can depend on each other; this is why they differ. “Answer: This karma arises from multiple conditions” onward is the second [part], the answer; first the prose, then the verse. Refuting this view has three approaches in all: First, since your [notion of] cause cannot be established, how could there be causelessness? Thus all five propositions are unobtainable. Second, existence and non-existence both arise from your mind: previously you asserted existence, but once existence was sought and found nowhere, you then saw non-existence; these are entirely your existence and your non-existence, and have nothing to do with me. Third, what was explained above as non-existent was merely the non-existence of the five kinds of person and dharmas seen by you, not the non-existence of a provisionally designated, dependently arisen person and dharmas. This single answer contains many facets: First, the above explanation of no person and no dharma refuted their view of existence; now, explaining the provisionally designated person and dharmas remedies their mindset of annihilationism, demonstrating the meaning of neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor permanence. Second, the above explanation of neither person nor dharma is the middle way; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is termed provisional designation; this is the meaning of the middle preceding the provisional, and the provisional following the middle. Third, the above explanation of neither person nor dharma is the emptiness of intrinsic nature; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is the emptiness of dependent origination, whereby person and dharmas can be established. Hence the old saying of the mountain tradition: “Within the emptiness of intrinsic nature all dharmas are established.” Fourth, the above explanation of no person and no dharma is conventional truth refuting intrinsic nature and speaking of emptiness, which is the middle way of conventional truth; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is the middle way: conventional dependently arisen person and dharmas have never been person and dharmas, which is called neither person nor dharma, termed the emptiness of dependent origination, which is the middle way of ultimate truth. Question: This merely explains dependently arisen person and dharmas; where is the text for “neither person nor dharma”? Answer: The text is clearly shown in the prose following the verse. Fifth, the above explanation of the absence of the five kinds of person and dharmas is refuting errors; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is elucidating the sūtras. The verse is divided into two: the first three lines explain that there are dependently arisen person and dharmas. The single line “there is no other thing” discriminates that there are none of the opponent's five kinds of person and dharmas. The statements on middle and provisional in a certain master's opening chapter were all formulated relying on this passage of the Chapter on the Agent. The faults of the four pairs in the opening chapter are the preceding faulting of the opponent's view that person and dharmas do not depend on each other; the correctness of the four pairs is the meaning in this passage that person and dharmas depend on each other. Therefore, the statements in the opening chapter originated from this passage. Middle and provisional arising from this chapter means: demonstrating that the opponent's intrinsically existent person and dharmas are unobtainable, being neither person nor dharma, is the meaning of the middle preceding the provisional. Dependently arisen person and dharmas is the meaning of the provisional preceding the middle. Dependently arisen person and dharmas being neither person nor dharma is called the meaning of the middle following the provisional. Neither person nor dharma being provisionally designated as person and dharmas is the meaning of the provisional following the middle. Although the Sanlun masters recite the words of middle and provisional in the opening chapter, they do not know the source in the text; hence I indicate it briefly here. The prose stating “karma is initially determinately non-existent” simply means that karma initially lacks determinacy; the rest is all easy to understand. Furthermore, from “Just as refuting action and agent” onward is the second [part], refuting experience and experiencer; its sequence is as before.