中觀論疏 7.3

7.3

上云無生死及無本際，外云：經言「生死是苦，涅槃為樂。」今既有苦即有生死，若有生死必有始終中間也。二者明如來初生即唱三界皆苦，故知此說是佛教之原。今既有斯教即知有苦，有苦故則有生死；若無生死者佛說何物苦耶？三者原論主所以破者，必欲拔眾生苦與眾生樂故耳。若不欲拔苦與樂，何事破耶？既欲拔眾生苦，苦即是生死，不應言無眾生及以生死。四者欲釋諸大乘甚深要觀，如《大品》云「色非常非無常、非苦非樂。」又如《淨名》云「五受陰洞達空無所起，是名苦義。」菩薩解苦無苦，是故無苦而有真諦，故說此品。五者欲拔眾生苦與眾生樂，故說此品。若實見有苦則不可離苦，良由解苦無苦方能離苦。問：云何名苦耶？答：釋迦一化略有三門，初明一苦、次明三苦、後明八苦。言一苦者，佛初生墮地即行七步，一手指天一手指地而說偈言：「天上天下，唯我為尊。三界皆苦，何可樂者？」此即一苦教也。問：云何名一苦耶？答：一云三界皆有苦受，故皆是苦苦。《成論》云「三界皆有苦受，但重輕為異耳。」二云三界皆一行苦成，以行苦故一切皆苦。三云總說眾苦名為一苦，故《法華》云「三界無安猶如火宅，常有生老病死憂患。」以三界同有此患，名為一苦。《眾事分阿毘曇》「欲界名苦苦，色界名壞苦，無色界有行苦。」以三界具於三苦，故云三界皆苦也。問：何故爾耶？答：依毘曇義，欲界有苦受，故云苦苦。色界無苦受但有樂受，而樂受壞時生苦，名為壞苦。無色界無復形質，壞義不顯，但為無常遷役，故云行苦。此一苦教也。次說三苦者，有二種三苦：一僧佉人明苦，如《百論疏》出。二《涅槃經》云「苦受者名為苦苦，餘二受者壞苦、行苦。」諸師穿鑿異論紛紜，竟未有知其門者。今僅依《俱舍論》三藏所說：「言苦，受生時苦、住時苦、滅時樂，以苦受生住二時皆苦，故與苦苦之名。樂受生時，樂住時樂，唯果報壞時苦，是故樂受名為壞苦。捨受生住壞三時苦義並皆不彰，但為無常所遷，是故捨受稱為行苦。」成論師云：隨地判者三塗是苦受，為苦苦；人天至三禪是樂受，為壞苦；四禪至悲想非非想為捨受，是行苦。隨義判者，一一地具三苦，但上二界三苦輕、下界苦重耳。《智度論》云「上界死苦甚於人間」，故知上界亦有苦受，不同數人上界並無苦受。若見親緣發樂受、若覩怨憎起苦受、非怨非親生捨受，此三緣發三受也。如寒遇火為樂、轉近燒則苦受、二中間為捨受，但一火緣具生三受。次八苦教者，十月處於胎獄備受煮燒，初生之時冷風觸身與地獄無異，名為生苦。《法華經》云「髮白而面皺，齒疎形枯竭，念其死不久。」名為老苦。一大不調百一病，總四大乖反四百四病，稱為病苦。夫死者天下之極悲也，刀風解形，身離神逝，名為死苦。父東子西、兄南弟北，名愛別離苦。所不愛者而共聚會，名怨憎會苦。所覓之事而不遂心，名求不得苦。有斯五陰眾苦熾盛，名五盛陰苦。又此五陰盛貯眾苦，名五盛陰苦。問：八苦云何攝三苦？答：《涅槃》云「生具五種」，則生中具含三苦。老病死細論具三苦，麁判有行壞二苦。死與愛別離是壞苦，怨憎會是苦苦，求不得有二：一求善法不得，此壞苦；二惡法未離，是苦苦。此招提釋也。若以《俱舍論》三苦釋之，則可知此八苦中以有苦受必具二苦，則知八苦皆具三苦，但解苦數論不同。數人言：色心等三聚皆苦。所以然者，一切有為之法皆欲樂住，今為無常切之，是故皆苦也。若《成論》云「唯心是苦，餘二聚無苦。而經說色皆苦者，此是苦具，故名苦耳。」數人雖云色心皆苦，然有漏之法為無常切故苦。以無漏為無常切，則順於涅槃，故不苦也。《成論》明有漏無漏皆悉苦也。依後文，外道明苦最狹，唯苦受是苦。問：生死為有樂、為無樂？答：開善云生死實是苦都無樂，但於苦法中橫生樂想言有樂耳。莊嚴云：生死中雖無實樂而有虛樂，虛樂者雜行苦故，取相感無常善則感樂。今以取相善感樂，故樂是虛也。然二師明樂雖異，同言生死有實苦也。《俱舍論》云「生死有樂，但樂少苦多，故云皆苦耳。」迦旃延用此義。《婆沙》四十二卷「問云：陰中有樂不？若有者，何故不說樂耶？若無者，云何佛說三受？答：應作是說。陰中有樂，但樂少故，如毒瓶一渧蜜墮中，不以一渧蜜故說為蜜瓶，以毒多故說為毒瓶。又解：實無有樂，故但說苦諦。而說有三受者，受重苦時望輕苦為樂耳。如受地獄苦，望畜生苦為樂。」此二師與開善、莊嚴異，開善、莊嚴諍虛樂有無耳；今諍實有樂、實無樂也。今言破者，物之大患莫過於苦，九十六術皆競求離，不達其因生四種謬。五百異部雖識苦因、未窮其本，封執定性，則苦果不息，更造苦因。今欲示其因緣之苦無有定性，令苦果得息、不起苦因，故云觀苦品。

Above it was said that there is neither saṃsāra nor a beginning point. An opponent says: "The sūtras state, 'Saṃsāra is suffering; nirvāṇa is bliss.' Now, since there is suffering, there is saṃsāra; and if there is saṃsāra, there must be a beginning, an end, and an interval in between. Second, it is explained that when the Tathāgata was first born, he immediately proclaimed that the three realms are all suffering; hence we know that this teaching is the very source of the Buddha's dispensation. Now, since this teaching exists, we know that suffering exists; because suffering exists, saṃsāra exists. If there were no saṃsāra, what thing would the Buddha have called suffering? Third, the very reason the author of this treatise refutes things must be his wish to pull sentient beings out of suffering and give them bliss. If he did not wish to pull them out of suffering and give bliss, why would he engage in refutation? Since he wishes to pull sentient beings out of suffering, and suffering is precisely saṃsāra, one should not say that there are no sentient beings and no saṃsāra. Fourth, he wishes to explain the profound and essential contemplations of the Mahāyāna, as the Pañcaviṃśati states: 'Form is neither permanent nor impermanent, neither suffering nor bliss.' And as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Pervasively penetrating the five aggregates of appropriation to be empty and unarisen is called the meaning of suffering.' The bodhisattva understands suffering to be without suffering; therefore, there being no suffering, there is ultimate truth. For this reason this chapter is spoken. Fifth, it is to pull sentient beings out of suffering and give them bliss that this chapter is spoken. If one genuinely sees suffering to exist, then one cannot become free from suffering; it is truly because of understanding suffering to be without suffering that one is able to be free from suffering." Question: What is called suffering? Answer: Śākyamuni's entire teaching career contains briefly three approaches: first, explaining one suffering; next, explaining three sufferings; and finally, explaining eight sufferings. As for the "one suffering," when the Buddha fell to earth upon his first birth, he immediately walked seven steps, pointed one hand to heaven and one to earth, and spoke the gāthā: "Above heaven and below heaven, only I am supreme. The three realms are all suffering; what could there be to enjoy?" This is the teaching of one suffering. Question: What is meant by "one suffering"? Answer: One explanation says that all three realms have painful sensation, and therefore all are the suffering of suffering. The Tattvasiddhi states: "All three realms have painful sensation, differing only in being heavy or light." A second says that all three realms are constituted by the suffering of conditioned existence; because of the suffering of conditioned existence, all are suffering. A third says that generally speaking of all sufferings is called "one suffering." Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "There is no safety in the three realms, just like a burning house; there are always the worries and tribulations of birth, old age, sickness, and death." Because the three realms equally have this tribulation, it is called "one suffering." The Dharmaskandha Abhidharma states: "The desire realm is called the suffering of suffering, the form realm is called the suffering of change, and the formless realm has the suffering of conditioned existence." Because the three realms possess all three sufferings, it says that the three realms are all suffering. Question: Why is that so? Answer: According to the Abhidharma doctrine, the desire realm has painful sensation, and hence is called the suffering of suffering. The form realm has no painful sensation but only pleasant sensation, and when pleasant sensation deteriorates it gives rise to suffering, which is called the suffering of change. The formless realm has no physical form and the meaning of deterioration is not apparent, but it is merely driven by impermanence; hence it is called the suffering of conditioned existence. This is the teaching of one suffering. Next, regarding the explanation of the three sufferings, there are two kinds of three sufferings: first, the suffering explained by the Sāṃkhyas, as set forth in the Commentary on the Śata-śāstra; second, as the Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Painful sensation is called the suffering of suffering; the other two sensations are the suffering of change and the suffering of conditioned existence." Various masters have forced interpretations and divergent theories abound, yet none has grasped its gateway. Now I merely rely on what is stated by the Tripiṭaka Master in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya: "Regarding suffering: when sensation arises it is painful, when it abides it is painful, and when it ceases it is pleasant; because painful sensation is painful both at the time of arising and abiding, it is given the name 'suffering of suffering.' Pleasant sensation is pleasant when it arises and pleasant when it abides, and is painful only when its fruition deteriorates; therefore pleasant sensation is called 'the suffering of change.' With neutral sensation, the sense of suffering is not apparent at any of the three times of arising, abiding, or deterioration, but being driven by impermanence, neutral sensation is termed 'the suffering of conditioned existence.'" The Tattvasiddhi masters say: If classified according to planes of existence, the three bad destinies are painful sensation, which is the suffering of suffering; humans and gods up to the third dhyāna are pleasant sensation, which is the suffering of change; the fourth dhyāna up to the station of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is neutral sensation, which is the suffering of conditioned existence. If classified according to principle, each and every plane possesses all three sufferings, but in the upper two realms the three sufferings are light, while in the lower realm suffering is heavy. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "The suffering of death in the higher realms is worse than that among humans," hence we know that the higher realms also have painful sensation, unlike the Sarvāstivādins who hold that the higher realms have no painful sensation whatsoever. If one encounters pleasant conditions, pleasant sensation arises; if one beholds hated enemies, painful sensation arises; if neither enemy nor kin, neutral sensation arises—these three conditions give rise to the three sensations. Just as when cold, encountering fire is pleasant; drawing closer so that it burns is painful sensation; and in between the two is neutral sensation: thus a single fire-condition fully gives rise to three sensations. Next, as for the teaching of the eight sufferings: dwelling for ten months in the prison of the womb, fully experiencing boiling and burning, and upon first being born, the cold air touching the body is no different from hell—this is called the suffering of birth. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Hair white and face wrinkled, teeth sparse and form withered away, thinking that his death will not be long"—this is called the suffering of old age. When one great element is out of harmony there are a hundred and one ailments; when in total the four great elements run contrary there are four hundred and four ailments—this is called the suffering of illness. Death is the ultimate grief under heaven: the wind of the blade dismembers the form, the body is severed and the consciousness departs—this is called the suffering of death. Father to the east and son to the west, elder brother to the south and younger brother to the north—this is called the suffering of separation from the beloved. Gathering together with what is unloved—this is called the suffering of encountering what is hated. Matters sought after not complying with one's wishes—this is called the suffering of not getting what one seeks. Possessing these five aggregates, all sufferings blaze fiercely—this is called the suffering of the five blazingly rampant aggregates. Moreover, these five aggregates abundantly contain all sufferings, and hence are called the suffering of the five blazingly rampant aggregates. Question: How do the eight sufferings subsume the three sufferings? Answer: The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says, "Birth possesses five kinds," so within birth the three sufferings are fully contained. In detailed analysis, old age, illness, and death possess all three sufferings; broadly classified, they comprise the two sufferings of conditioned existence and change. Death and separation from the beloved are the suffering of change; encountering what is hated is the suffering of suffering; not getting what one seeks has two: first, seeking wholesome dharmas and not obtaining them is the suffering of change; second, not being free from unwholesome dharmas is the suffering of suffering. This is the explanation by [Master] Zhaoti. If explained according to the three sufferings in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, it can be known that among these eight sufferings, since having painful sensation necessarily entails the two [other] sufferings, one knows that the eight sufferings all possess the three sufferings; but the Sarvāstivādins and the Tattvasiddhi differ in their understanding of suffering. The Sarvāstivādins say: The three categories of form, mind, and [non-concurrent dharmas] are all suffering. Why so? All conditioned dharmas desire to abide in pleasure, but now they are pressed by impermanence; therefore all are suffering. The Tattvasiddhi says: "Only the mind is suffering; the other two categories are without suffering. As for the sūtras stating that form is all suffering, this is an instrument of suffering, and hence is called suffering." Although the Sarvāstivādins say that both form and mind are suffering, it is defiled dharmas that are suffering because of being pressed by impermanence. When undefiled dharmas are pressed by impermanence, they accord with nirvāṇa, and therefore are not suffering. The Tattvasiddhi explains that both defiled and undefiled dharmas are entirely suffering. Following the subsequent text, the non-Buddhists explain suffering in the narrowest way: only painful sensation is suffering. Question: Does saṃsāra have pleasure, or is it devoid of pleasure? Answer: Kaishan says that saṃsāra is truly suffering and entirely devoid of pleasure; it is merely that within painful dharmas, one mistakenly gives rise to the conception of pleasure and says that pleasure exists. Zhuangyan says: Although there is no real pleasure within saṃsāra, there is illusory pleasure. Illusory pleasure is mixed with the suffering of conditioned existence; when grasping signs evokes impermanent wholesomeness, it evokes pleasure. Now, because wholesomeness that grasps signs evokes pleasure, pleasure is illusory. However, although the two masters differ in their explanation of pleasure, they agree in stating that saṃsāra contains real suffering. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: "Saṃsāra has pleasure, but pleasure is little and suffering is much; therefore it is said that all is suffering." Kātyāyana adopts this view. Fascicle forty-two of the Mahāvibhāṣā asks: "Is there pleasure within the aggregates or not? If there is, why is pleasure not spoken of? If there is not, why did the Buddha teach three sensations? Answer: It should be said like this: There is pleasure within the aggregates, but because pleasure is little, just like a jar of poison into which a single drop of honey falls, on account of that one drop of honey it is not called a honey-jar, but because poison is much it is called a poison-jar. Another explanation: In reality there is no pleasure, and therefore only the truth of suffering is taught. That three sensations are spoken of is merely that when one experiences severe suffering, looking toward mild suffering it is taken as pleasure. Just like experiencing the suffering of hell, looking toward the suffering of animals it is taken as pleasure." These two masters differ from Kaishan and Zhuangyan: Kaishan and Zhuangyan debated whether illusory pleasure exists or not; now the debate is between real pleasure existing and real pleasure not existing. Now regarding the refutation: among the great afflictions of beings, none exceeds suffering. The ninety-six heterodox arts all vie to seek release from it, but failing to reach its causes, they give rise to four kinds of delusions. Although the five hundred different sects recognize the causes of suffering, they have not plumbed its root; clinging rigidly to fixed intrinsic nature, the fruits of suffering do not cease, and they further create causes of suffering. Now, wishing to show that the suffering of dependent origination has no fixed intrinsic nature, so that the fruits of suffering may be made to cease and causes of suffering are not generated, this is why it is called the 'Chapter on Examining Suffering.'"