中觀論疏 8.13

8.13

「答曰是義俱不離斷常過」下，第二破。問：外有偈立，龍樹何故無偈破？答：有二義。一者顯外人雖復重救，終不離斷常，故論主不答之，如此不答即是答也。二者此論破義有多門，自有隨有一立即有一破，上來破立是也；自有待外諸部立義都竟，至後一時破之，即今文是也。問：若爾，青目何故答耶？答：青目顯龍樹不答所以，非是破彼義也。龍樹所以不答者，雖有別救，無有別通，已漏前關，故不須答也。問：云何不離斷常？答：此法持業至果則墮於常，持業不至果墮於斷。又不失法若念念滅，與業同無，則墮於斷；若不念念滅，即是無為，何能持業？又不失法無念念滅，則墮於常；有大期滅，便入於斷。「問曰若爾無業果報」下，第四門次破斷滅之見，前問、次答。問意云：前二番求無所持之業，次又破能持業法。若無能持所持則無因，無因則無果，故論主是方廣斷無，亦是六師邪見。

From "The answer is: this thesis equally does not escape the errors of annihilation and permanence" downward is the second [section], refutation. Question: The opponent set forth verses to establish [his position]; why did Nāgārjuna not compose verses to refute him? Answer: There are two meanings. First, to show that although the opponent repeatedly attempts rescues, he ultimately does not escape annihilation and permanence; therefore, the author of the treatise does not answer him. Not answering in this manner is itself an answer. Second, this treatise has many approaches to refuting doctrines: sometimes as soon as a thesis is established, it is immediately refuted, as with the refutations and establishments above; sometimes it waits until the various outside schools have fully established their doctrines, and only afterward refutes them all at once, as in the present passage. Question: If so, why did Piṅgala answer? Answer: Piṅgala shows the reason why Nāgārjuna did not answer, rather than refuting their doctrine [himself]. The reason Nāgārjuna did not answer is that although [the opponent] had special rescues, he had no special coherence, having already fallen through the previous checkpoints; hence there was no need to answer. Question: How does it not escape annihilation and permanence? Answer: If this dharma [the imperishable] maintains karma until the fruit [matures], it falls into permanence; if it maintains karma but does not reach the fruit, it falls into annihilation. Furthermore, if the imperishable dharma ceases moment by moment, becoming non-existent together with the karma, it falls into annihilation; if it does not cease moment by moment, it is unconditioned—how then could it maintain karma? Moreover, if the imperishable dharma has no moment-by-moment cessation, it falls into permanence; if it has a cessation at the end of the major period, it enters into annihilation. From "The question says: If so, then there would be no karmic fruit and retribution" downward is the fourth section, next refuting the view of annihilation; first comes the question, next the answer. The meaning of the question says: In the previous two rounds, we sought and found no karma that is maintained; next you also refuted the dharma that can maintain karma. If there is neither that which can maintain nor that which is maintained, then there is no cause; if there is no cause, there is no fruit. Therefore the treatise master is [asserting] the Fangguang's nihilistic non-existence, and also the wrong views of the six teachers.