中觀論疏 8.14

8.14

「答曰」下，第二七偈，二章：前二偈申二諦中道明業離斷常、第二五偈破外人定性之業墮於常見。初又二：前偈明二諦不斷常、次偈明第一義諦無有生滅。「雖空亦不斷」者，外人謂論主執空故墮斷滅，是故今明業雖畢竟空非是斷滅，若外道邪見之空及方廣所謂空、二乘人所明空皆是斷滅。《涅槃經》、云「若以聲聞言無布施，是則名為破戒邪見。」《智度論》云「聲聞之空名為但空，故是斷滅。」今明空是有空，有宛然而空，又空不住空，名為不斷。「雖有不常」者，外謂若非是斷便應是常，故名雖有非常，破其常見，以有是空有故有非是常。若外道小乘及有所得大乘所計之有，此即是常。問：此文得具論三中不？答：得也。雖空則知空非定空，既非定空豈復定有？又空故不有、有故不空，即真諦中道。俗亦爾。有故不著空、空故不住有，即俗中也。合辨易知也。又一勢作之。九道業宛然而四絕，豈是斷耶？雖四絕，九道業宛然，寧是常耶？影師論序云「真諦雖空而有，俗諦雖有而空。雖空而有故不斷，雖有而空故不常。」此釋甚好也。「業果報不失」者，下半二意：一者明業具二諦故不斷常，令果報不失，無有別不失法持業令不失。蓋是如來依二諦說法，故云此是佛所說。二者若依下長行釋，上半正明業是二諦故不斷常，此是申中道正義，即是對偏之中；下半破邪義，汝不知二諦中道，言有不失法謂是佛所說耳。

From "The answer is" downward are the second [part's] seven verses, in two sections: the first two verses elucidate the middle way of the two truths, demonstrating that karma is free from annihilation and permanence; the second five verses refute the opponent's karma of determinate nature as falling into the view of permanence. The first section also has two parts: the previous verse demonstrates that the two truths are not annihilated or permanent; the next verse demonstrates that in the ultimate truth there is no arising or ceasing. Regarding "Although empty, it is not annihilated": The opponent thought that because the treatise master grasped emptiness, he fell into annihilation; therefore it is now clarified that although karma is ultimately empty, it is not annihilated. If it were the emptiness of non-Buddhist wrong views, the emptiness spoken of by the Fangguang, or the emptiness explained by practitioners of the two vehicles, all of these would be annihilation. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "If, following the śrāvakas, one says that there is no giving, that is called the wrong view that destroys the precepts." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The emptiness of the śrāvakas is called mere emptiness, and therefore it is annihilation." Now it is clarified that emptiness is the emptiness of existence: existence is vividly [present] yet empty, and emptiness does not abide in emptiness; thus it is called "not annihilated." Regarding "Although existing, it is not permanent": The opponent thought that if it is not annihilated, it must be permanent; hence it is called "although existing, it is not permanent," refuting his view of permanence. Because existence is the existence of emptiness, existence is not permanent. If it were the existence postulated by non-Buddhists, the Hīnayāna, or the Mahāyāna that has attainment, that would be permanence. Question: Can this text be fully discussed in terms of the three middles? Answer: Yes. "Although empty" means one knows emptiness is not determinately empty; since it is not determinately empty, how could it be determinately existent? Furthermore, because it is empty, it does not exist; because it exists, it is not empty: this is the middle way of the ultimate truth. The conventional is also like this: because it exists, one does not cling to emptiness; because it is empty, one does not abide in existence: this is the conventional middle. Combining them to explain is easy to understand. It can also be framed in another way: The karma of the nine paths is vividly present yet beyond the four [extremes]—how could it be annihilated? Although beyond the four [extremes], the karma of the nine paths is vividly present—how could it be permanent? Master [Tan]ying's preface to the treatise says: "Although the ultimate truth is empty, it exists; although the conventional truth exists, it is empty. Because it is empty yet exists, it is not annihilated; because it exists yet is empty, it is not permanent." This explanation is very fine. Regarding "Karmic fruits and retributions are not lost": The second half [of the verse] has two meanings: First, it clarifies that because karma possesses the two truths, it is neither annihilated nor permanent, so that fruits and retributions are not lost, without there being a separate imperishable dharma that maintains karma to make it not lost. This is merely that the Tathāgata expounded the Dharma relying on the two truths; hence it says "This was spoken by the Buddha." Second, if explained according to the prose below, the first half directly clarifies that karma constitutes the two truths and is therefore neither annihilated nor permanent—this elucidates the correct meaning of the middle way, which is the middle that confronts bias; the second half refutes the heterodox doctrine: you do not understand the middle way of the two truths, and say that there is an imperishable dharma, claiming that this was spoken by the Buddha.