中觀論疏 7.10

7.10

開品三段：初破外人有虛妄人法、第二破外人執有空義、第三段空有非空非有一切皆破。就初有四：一立、二破、三救、四破救。就初立義中又二：上半引經、下半立義。問：虛誑與妄取何異？答：虛誑約境，妄取據情。所見者不實，名為虛誑。十八部內有二部，初名一說部，謂生死涅槃同是假名不實，故名一說，從大眾部出也。二出世部，明世間法從虛妄因生是故不實，出世間法不從虛妄因生名為真實。若據即時人義約四諦論之，苦集是虛妄因果，故名虛妄；道為實因、滅為實果，非是虛妄。若為無為分者，三諦未勉有為，故是虛妄；滅諦無為，非虛妄也。又舊地論師以七識為虛妄、八識為真實。攝大乘師以八識為妄、九識為真實。又云八識有二義：一妄、二真，有解性義是真、有果報識是妄用。《起信論》生滅、無生滅合，作梨耶體。《楞伽經》亦有二文：一云梨耶是如來藏、二云如來藏非阿梨耶。此一品正是破地論人義，不破數論等。數論等不明有為人法皆是妄謂所有也。下半立義，如文。「答曰」下，第二論主破。兩偈為二：初偈釋經，對其上半；第二破立，對其下半。初偈申經者，明佛為破實有人法之見，故明無有實，但是虛妄相謂有耳。此意在無實，不在有虛，汝云何不領無實反存有虛耶？若言有一豪可取者，則道理是有，云何為虛妄？以其名為虛妄故無一豪可取，既無一豪可取是則為空。然本對妄有真，在妄既無，寧有真實？即時攝大乘師等亦聞妄即作妄解，如釋《地持》八妄義等。今詳論主申佛說虛妄有四意：一者破計有實人法病故說妄，生死中無有實人法但是妄耳。二者如十地師等，聞妄作妄解，乃無有實人法而有虛妄人法。論主申佛意云，既言虛誑，何所有耶？佛說此者欲示空。三者佛說虛誑，既不存空。四者非但不存空有，亦不存非空有，一切無所依得，令悟實相。今聞妄作妄解，但得妄言耳，不解妄意。佛說苦亦有四意：一破樂、二不存苦、三不存空有、四一切無依。

The chapter is opened into three sections: first, refuting the outsider's assertion of illusory persons and phenomena; second, refuting the outsider's attachment to the meaning of emptiness; the third section refutes all of emptiness, existence, and neither emptiness nor existence. Concerning the first, there are four: first, propounding; second, refuting; third, rescuing; fourth, refuting the rescue. Within the first, propounding the thesis, there are again two: the first half cites the sūtra; the second half propounds the thesis. Question: What is the difference between being false and deceptive and erroneous grasping? Answer: False and deceptive refers to the object; erroneous grasping relies on the mental disposition. What is seen is not real—this is called false and deceptive. Among the eighteen sects there are two sects: the first is named the Ekavyāvahārika sect, which maintains that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally provisional designations and unreal, hence called 'One Convention' (Ekavyāvahāra), which originated from the Mahāsāṃghika school. The second is the Lokottaravāda sect, which clarifies that mundane phenomena arise from illusory causes and are therefore unreal, whereas supramundane phenomena do not arise from illusory causes and are called real. If based on the opinions of contemporary thinkers discussing this in terms of the four truths: suffering and origination are illusory causes and effects, hence called illusory; the path is the real cause, and cessation is the real effect, not illusory. If divided by conditioned and unconditioned: the three truths have not escaped being conditioned, hence they are illusory; the truth of cessation is unconditioned, not illusory. Furthermore, the old Dilun masters take the seventh consciousness as illusory and the eighth consciousness as real. The She-dacheng masters take the eighth consciousness as illusory and the ninth consciousness as real. They also say that the eighth consciousness has two meanings: first, illusory; second, real: having the meaning of understanding nature is real; having the retributive consciousness is illusory functioning. The *Awakening of Faith* joins arising-and-ceasing with non-arising-and-ceasing to form the entity of the ālayavijñāna. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* also has two texts: one says that the ālaya is the tathāgatagarbha; the second says that the tathāgatagarbha is not the ālayavijñāna. This one chapter precisely refutes the assertions of the Dilun masters; it does not refute the Sarvāstivādins and the like. The Sarvāstivādins and the like do not clarify that conditioned persons and phenomena are all mere illusory imputations. The second half propounds the thesis, as in the text. From 'Answer' downwards, the second [part] is the treatise master's refutation. The two verses have two parts: the first verse explains the sūtra, corresponding to its first half; the second refutes the propounding, corresponding to its second half. The first verse elucidates the sūtra: it clarifies that the Buddha, in order to refute the view of really existent persons and phenomena, therefore clarified that there is no reality, but there are only illusory appearances that are conceptually held to exist. This intention lies in the absence of reality, not in the existence of the illusory—why do you not grasp the absence of reality, but conversely preserve the existence of the illusory? If one says that there is a single hair's tip that can be grasped, then in principle it exists; how could it be illusory? Because it is called illusory, not a single hair's tip can be grasped; since not a single hair's tip can be grasped, it is emptiness. However, originally 'real' exists in contrast to 'illusory'; since it does not exist even in the illusory, how could there be a real? Contemporary She-dacheng masters and others, upon hearing 'illusory', immediately interpret it as an existent illusion, as in their explanations of the eight kinds of illusion in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* and so forth. Now examining carefully, the treatise master elucidates four intentions of the Buddha's speaking of the illusory: first, to refute the sickness of clinging to real persons and phenomena, he speaks of the illusory—within saṃsāra there are no real persons or phenomena, there is only illusion. Second, like the Daśabhūmika masters and others who, hearing 'illusory', interpret it as an existent illusion, holding that while there are no real persons or phenomena, there are illusory persons and phenomena: the treatise master elucidates the Buddha's intention, saying that since it is called false and deceptive, what could there be? The Buddha spoke this wishing to reveal emptiness. Third, when the Buddha spoke of false and deceptive, he did not preserve emptiness either. Fourth, not only did he not preserve emptiness or existence, he also did not preserve neither emptiness nor existence, so that there is completely nothing to rely upon or attain, causing [one] to awaken to the true nature of phenomena. Now, hearing 'illusory' and interpreting it as an existent illusion, one merely grasps the word 'illusion', but does not understand the intention of 'illusion'. The Buddha speaking of suffering also had four intentions: first, to refute pleasure; second, not to preserve suffering; third, not to preserve emptiness or existence; fourth, having no reliance on anything whatsoever.