中觀論疏 7.32

7.32

此品來有近遠兩義者，上來諸品處處已破有無。〈六種〉云「若使無有有，云何當有無」，乃至〈行品〉云「若有不空法，應當有空法」，如是並已破竟。但上來是略破、散破，今廣破是束破。所以具須作廣略破者，有無是諸見根，障中道本。諸見根者，如因有無成斷常，因斷常生六十二見，故有無是諸見之根。若有無病生則眾病並生，有無若滅諸患皆滅。障中道本者，近而為論，一切因果皆是中道。又佛性是中道，如佛呵迦葉：「我先不說中道為佛性，汝何故失意更問。」又中道為佛法身，如是一乘實相皆是中道。今起有無成斷常，故障中道。又如來常依二諦說法，但二諦是因緣空有。而外人聞有作有解，成自性之有；聞無作無解，成自性之無，則障於二諦。既障二諦則二智不生，便無三世諸佛菩薩。斯病既深，故須重破。又有此品來者，有人言：此論從始自末破洗諸法者，蓋是拆有入無、遣俗歸真耳。今謂不然，既求有無從，何所拆耶？撿無不得，何所入耶？蓋是迷者執有、惑人謂無，今責之不得，故云破有無。故〈作者品〉云「是業從眾緣生，假名為有，無有決定，非如汝所說。」故知外人無所見有亦無彼所見無，乃至五句。故知此有無非二諦攝，不得言此論遣有入無。以無彼所見有無，方得起因緣假名有無，始是佛真俗二諦。又大小乘學人聞有無是障道本、諸見根，便欲滅有無二見。今為破此人病，明有無本不生，今何所滅耶？汝言有有無者，求之應得；求既不得，云何有無耶？又一切行道坐禪學問人，如言有道可求、有禪可坐、有義可學，皆是有見；無有非道乃至無有非義，即是無見。設言道未曾有無，終有非有無之道，還是有見；若無此非有無道，即是無見。故有無病難捨，是以論主處處品慇懃破之也。次〈破合品〉明破有無者，惑者云：眾緣和合諸法便有，眾緣若散萬化便無。既有有無，何由無合？又上品破無有異，外人云：無無異相、有法有異，既有有無，云何無異？又有與無異、無與有異，既有有無，則有異也。又外難論主：若言無異，應無二諦；既有二諦，則有有無異也。問：云何是有無耶？答：有無多門。若就因果明者，僧佉計因中有果，為有；世師執因中無果，為無；勒沙婆因中亦有果亦無果，是亦有亦無。佛法內薩婆多明三世有，名之為有；曇無德二世無，名之為無。《俱舍論》出天親小乘義云「現在作因，未來則有。現在若不作因，未來則無。故未來亦有亦無。」迦葉鞞義，作因便謝過去名之為有，待果起竟方乃滅無，是為過去亦有亦無。若就人法明有無者，三外道並計有人法，名之為有。邪見外道撥無人法，名之為無。迦羅鳩馱應物起見，人問有耶？答言是有。人問無耶？即答云無。名亦有亦無。佛法內亦有三部：犢子有人有法，名之為有；方廣計無人無法，名之為無；薩婆多無人有法，稱亦有亦無。若就塵識論有無者，舊大乘義並明有塵有識。若方廣義，明無塵無識。若心無義，有塵無識。若唯識論，則無塵有識。問：眾生何因緣故起有無見？答：《智度論》云「愛多者著有，見多者著無。」一切眾生唯有愛見，如《法華》明毒虫與惡鬼。又四見多者著有，邪見多者著無。今明如此等並是麁論有無。學大乘人精識菩薩微細礙相，若起有心則名為有，纔起無心目之為無。今息如此等有無，故云破有無品。

There are both immediate and overarching reasons for the arrival of this chapter. In the preceding chapters, being and non-being have been refuted in various places: the "Examination of the Six Elements" states, "If there is no being, how can there be non-being?" and up to the "Examination of Conditioned Action," which states, "If there were an unempty phenomenon, there should be an empty phenomenon"—all such points have already been refuted. However, what came before was a brief and scattered refutation; now there is an extensive and consolidated refutation. Why must there be both extensive and brief refutations? Because being and non-being are the root of all views and the basis that obstructs the middle way. As for being the root of all views: because of being and non-being, annihilation and permanence are established; and because of annihilation and permanence, the sixty-two views arise. Thus being and non-being are the root of all views. If the disease of being and non-being arises, all diseases arise together; if being and non-being are eliminated, all afflictions are eliminated. As for being the basis that obstructs the middle way: to speak of it in immediate terms, all causes and effects are the middle way. Furthermore, Buddha-nature is the middle way, as when the Buddha scolded Kāśyapa: "Did I not previously state that the middle way is Buddha-nature? Why do you lose comprehension and ask again?" Moreover, the middle way is the Buddha's dharmakāya; thus the Ekayāna and the true mark are all the middle way. Now, giving rise to being and non-being establishes annihilation and permanence, thereby obstructing the middle way. Furthermore, the Tathāgata always expounds the Dharma relying on the two truths; yet the two truths are the emptiness and existence of causes and conditions. But when outsiders hear of being, they form an understanding of being, turning it into the being of intrinsic nature; when they hear of non-being, they form an understanding of non-being, turning it into the non-being of intrinsic nature; this then obstructs the two truths. Once the two truths are obstructed, the two wisdoms do not arise, and there would be no Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times. Since this disease is so deep, it must be refuted again. Furthermore, regarding the arrival of this chapter, some say: "That this treatise refutes and purges all phenomena from beginning to end is merely dismantling being to enter non-being, and dispelling the conventional to return to the real." We now say this is not so: since we seek being and non-being to no avail, what could be dismantled? Since examining non-being yields nothing, into what could one enter? It is merely that confused people cling to being and deluded people speak of non-being; now we interrogate them and nothing can be found, which is why it is called refuting being and non-being. Therefore the "Examination of the Agent" states: "This action arises from various conditions, provisionally designated as being; it has no determinate existence, unlike what you claim." Hence we know that what the outsider sees as being does not exist, nor does what they see as non-being, and so on up to the five propositions. Hence we know that this being and non-being are not subsumed under the two truths; one cannot say that this treatise dispels being to enter non-being. Only by lacking the being and non-being seen by them can the being and non-being of provisional designation through causes and conditions arise, which is truly the Buddha's two truths of the ultimate and the conventional. Moreover, when practitioners of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna hear that being and non-being are the root obstructing the path and the foundation of all views, they then wish to eliminate the two views of being and non-being. Now, to refute the disease of these people, it is clarified that being and non-being originally do not arise—what is there now to eliminate? If you say that there are being and non-being, searching for them should yield them; since searching yields nothing, how can there be being and non-being? Furthermore, for all those who practice the path, sit in meditation, or study doctrine, saying that there is a path to be sought, meditation to be sat, or doctrine to be learned are all views of being; saying that there is no non-path or no non-doctrine is a view of non-being. Even if one says the path has never had being or non-being, yet still holds that there is a path free from being and non-being, this is still a view of being; if there is no such path free from being and non-being, that is a view of non-being. Therefore, the disease of being and non-being is difficult to abandon, which is why the treatise master assiduously refutes it chapter after chapter. Next, regarding the refutation of being and non-being following the "Examination of Combination": the deluded say, "When various conditions harmonize and combine, phenomena then exist; when various conditions disperse, the myriad transformations then do not exist. Since there are being and non-being, on what basis can there be no combination?" Furthermore, the previous chapter refuted the existence of difference, and the outsider says: "Non-being has no mark of difference, but existing phenomena have difference; since there are being and non-being, how can there be no difference? Moreover, being is different from non-being, and non-being is different from being; since there are being and non-being, there is difference." Furthermore, the outsider objects to the treatise master: "If you say there is no difference, there should be no two truths; since there are two truths, there is the difference of being and non-being." Question: What are being and non-being? Answer: Being and non-being have many gates. If explained in terms of cause and effect: the Sāṃkhya posit that the effect exists within the cause, which is being; the Ulūka [Vaiśeṣika] masters hold that the effect does not exist within the cause, which is non-being; the Nirgrantha [Jaina] holds that the effect both exists and does not exist within the cause, which is both-being-and-non-being. Within the Buddha-Dharma, the Sarvāstivādins explain that the three times exist, calling it being; the Dharmaguptakas explain that the two times do not exist, calling it non-being. The *Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya* sets forth Vasubandhu's Hīnayāna view, saying: "If a cause is made in the present, it will exist in the future; if a cause is not made in the present, it will not exist in the future; therefore, the future both exists and does not exist." According to the Kāśyapīya view, when a cause is made it perishes into the past, which is called being, and only after awaiting the arising of the effect does it cease into non-being; thus the past both exists and does not exist. If being and non-being are explained in terms of person and phenomena: the three non-Buddhist schools all posit that person and phenomena exist, calling it being. Non-Buddhists of wrong views repudiate person and phenomena as non-existent, calling it non-being. Kakuda Kātyāyana formulated views according to circumstances: if someone asked, "Does it exist?", he answered that it exists; if someone asked, "Does it not exist?", he answered that it does not exist; this is called both-being-and-non-being. Within the Buddha-Dharma there are also three schools: the Vātsīputrīyas hold that person and phenomena exist, calling it being; the Fangguang [Mahāyāna extremists] assert that there is neither person nor phenomena, calling it non-being; the Sarvāstivādins hold that there is no person but there are phenomena, termed both-being-and-non-being. If being and non-being are discussed in terms of sensory objects and consciousness: the older Mahāyāna views both explained that there are sensory objects and consciousness. The Fangguang view explains that there are neither objects nor consciousness. The "mental non-existence" (xinnu) view holds that there are objects but no consciousness. The Consciousness-Only (Vijñaptimātra) treatise holds that there are no objects but there is consciousness. Question: By what causes and conditions do sentient beings give rise to views of being and non-being? Answer: The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Those with much craving cling to being; those with many views cling to non-being." Sentient beings have only craving and views, as the *Lotus Sūtra* illustrates with poisonous insects and evil demons. Furthermore, those with an excess of the four views cling to being; those with an excess of wrong views cling to non-being. We now clarify that all such discussions are coarse analyses of being and non-being. Practitioners of the Mahāyāna possess refined discernment of the bodhisattva's subtle marks of obstruction: if a thought of being arises, it is called being; the moment a thought of non-being arises, it is regarded as non-being. Now, in order to quiet all such forms of being and non-being, this chapter is called "Examination of Being and Non-being."