中觀論疏 7.43

7.43

「復次亦無有解」第二次破解。又分為二：第一偈破有為解、第二偈破無為解。初破有為解，即是破其道諦義；第二破無為解，是破其滅諦義。亦是破有為解脫、無為解脫義，凡有解脫不出斯二。問：涅槃與解脫何異？答：涅槃必解脫，解脫不必涅槃，如有為解脫、無為解脫，故解脫通二處，涅槃但是無為。大小乘義並爾也。破有為解脫中即是對縛破解開三時門：一者已縛無解者，此論斷惑義。已縛者在惑已謝，何所斷耶？又縛已謝則無縛，無縛云何有解？又當在我見時，無無我解。二者未縛無縛，可待亦無解，此明惑在未來，解云何斷耶？三解惑一時則不得竝，如計我見是惑、無我心是解，正起我見時無有無我解、有無我解時無我見惑，云何一時耶？又有三句：一者有縛時無解、二者無縛時又無解、三縛解並時亦無有解。他義備有此三：初起惑時正縛無解、次無礙道解惑一時、次解脫道有解無縛，此三句入今三門破。「問曰」下，第二破無為解脫。前問、次答。此是數論及大乘人並作此問。如言本有涅槃、始有涅槃、性淨方便淨，皆是今外人問意。問：何以知此文是破無為解脫？答：立中云有人修道現入涅槃。既稱為入，當知是無餘涅槃也。「答曰」下，正破無為涅槃。若作二波若義，上破有為波若、今破無為波若。釋有為波若二師：南方云十地解皆是有為，故名有為波若；攝論師云波若是正體，智是無為。此與經違。《涅槃》云「此常法稱」，要是如來，云何因中已是常？《智度論》云「波若變薩波若」，常云何變耶？又正體智常者，十地解云何明昧耶？釋無為波若二家：一用實相境是也、二用三德中波若是也。上半牒外人義、下半正破之。無受有二：一以五陰名受、二以取著之心名之為受。入無餘時無此二受，故言不受諸法。此人乃不受於受、受於無受，故無受還成受，名為受所縛。又此人云：心無所受而終有所得。有所得則終有受，故為受所縛。如是離凡得聖，聖還成凡也。生死涅槃真妄皆爾。

"Furthermore, there is also no liberation" begins the second section, which subsequently refutes liberation. It is also divided into two: the first verse refutes conditioned liberation, and the second verse refutes unconditioned liberation. The initial refutation of conditioned liberation is indeed a refutation of the meaning of the truth of the path; the second refutation of unconditioned liberation is a refutation of the meaning of the truth of cessation. They are also refutations of the meanings of conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation, for any liberation does not go beyond these two. Question: What is the difference between nirvāṇa and liberation? Answer: Nirvāṇa necessarily entails liberation, but liberation does not necessarily entail nirvāṇa, as in the cases of conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation; hence liberation applies to both, whereas nirvāṇa is only unconditioned. The tenets of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are alike in this regard. In refuting conditioned liberation, liberation is refuted in confrontation with bondage by setting up the approach of the three times: First, what is already bound has no liberation. This discusses the meaning of severing defilements. If it is already bound, the defilements have already passed away; what then is severed? Furthermore, when the bondage has already passed away, there is no bondage; with no bondage, how could there be liberation? Again, precisely when one is in the view of a self, there is no understanding of non-self. Second, what is not yet bound has no bondage; since one is waiting [for it], it also has no liberation. This clarifies that when the defilements are in the future, how could liberation sever them? Third, liberation and defilement occurring at the same time cannot coexist. For instance, if one posits that the view of a self is defilement and the mind of non-self is liberation, then precisely when the view of a self arises, there is no liberation of non-self; when there is the liberation of non-self, there is no defilement of the view of a self. How could they be simultaneous? Furthermore, there are three propositions: 1. When there is bondage, there is no liberation; 2. When there is no bondage, there is also no liberation; 3. When bondage and liberation are simultaneous, there is likewise no liberation. The doctrines of others contain all three of these: when defilement first arises, it is precisely bound and without liberation; next, on the unimpeded path, liberation and defilement are simultaneous; next, on the path of liberation, there is liberation and no bondage. These three propositions fall into the refutation of the present three approaches. "It is asked" below is the second part, refuting unconditioned liberation. First comes the question, and next the answer. Both the Sāṃkhya (or Sarvāstivāda) and Mahāyāna proponents raise this question alike. Statements such as originally existent nirvāṇa, newly attained nirvāṇa, purity by nature, and purity by expedient means are all the intention behind the opponent's question here. Question: How is it known that this text refutes unconditioned liberation? Answer: In the thesis it states that there is a person who cultivates the path and presently enters nirvāṇa. Since it is termed "entering," one should know that it is nirvāṇa without remainder. "The answer is" below directly refutes unconditioned nirvāṇa. If explained in terms of the two prajñās: above was the refutation of conditioned prajñā, and here is the refutation of unconditioned prajñā. There are two masters who explain conditioned prajñā: the southern masters say that the realizations of the ten bhūmis are all conditioned, and hence are called conditioned prajñā; the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say that prajñā is the fundamental [wisdom] and that wisdom is unconditioned. This contradicts the sūtras. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "This permanent Dharma-designation" applies only to the Tathāgata; how could it already be permanent in the stage of the cause? The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Prajñā transforms into sarvajñā"; how could the permanent transform? Moreover, if fundamental wisdom were permanent, why would the realizations of the ten bhūmis have clarity and obscurity? There are two schools that explain unconditioned prajñā: one adopts the realm of true reality; the other adopts the prajñā among the three virtues. The first half of the verse takes up the opponent's doctrine, and the second half directly refutes it. "Non-appropriation" has two senses: first, taking the five aggregates to be appropriation; second, taking the mind of grasping attachment to be appropriation. When entering [nirvāṇa] without remainder, these two appropriations are absent, and therefore it is said that one does not appropriate dharmas. This person merely does not appropriate what is appropriated, yet appropriates non-appropriation; thus non-appropriation turns back into appropriation, which is called being bound by appropriation. Furthermore, this person says: the mind has nothing it appropriates, yet ultimately there is something attained. If there is something attained, then ultimately there is appropriation; therefore one is bound by appropriation. In this manner, in leaving the ordinary and attaining the noble, the noble turns back into the ordinary. The same is true of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the real and the false.