中觀論疏 8.21

8.21

此品所以來者，凡有三義：一明通方觀行，前觀業空、今觀法空。二者破病故來，從初品至於觀業，謂破法中之別，則是別觀；今總若人若法皆稱為法，名為總觀。故論有總別破於四緣，經明廣略二相說法。問：為破顛倒法名為觀法、為觀諸法實相名為法也？答：俱有二義。一者求顛倒之法不可得，故云觀法；二者觀若人若法，萬化不同皆是實相之法，使求理之徒因而悟入。故文云「若諸法畢竟空是實相者，云何入耶」，此正意也。問：此論破一切虛妄偏邪、顯正道實相，何故不命初即辨？不爾，最後方明而中間說耶？答：略有二義。一約破申次第，邪教覆正經，其義不明照，要須破邪玄宗乃顯，故至此章方得說也。又此論二十五品大開三意：初十七品破洗人法，明諸法實相；今此一品次明得益，從〈破時品〉已後更復破執、重明實相。問：何故作此分耶？答：依《智度論》解〈習應品〉，初說菩薩習應波若；次中間明得益，謂重罪消滅、諸天守護；辨得益竟明習應。如來說經既有此三，菩薩造論義亦如是。自上已來破邪顯正，而聞者不知破顯得何等利，是故此品明其得益。得益雖竟，疑執未盡，更復破邪、重明實相。又既聞得益便樂欲聞，前雖得益後更進深悟。又雖後得益而得無所得，故更復破邪、顯實相也。三者自上已來明實相體，此之一品明實相用。問：云何為實相體？何者為實相用？答：九十六術皆云天下唯我一人、天下唯我一道。各謂己法實、餘並虛妄。阿毘曇人以四真諦理名之為實。《成論》云「唯一滅諦空平等理稱之為實」。南土大乘以破諦之理稱為真實。北方實相波若名之為實。乃至攝大乘學者二無我理、三無性理、阿摩羅識稱真實，餘為虛妄。今總而究之，若有一理，名為常見，即是虛妄，不名為實；若無一理，又是邪見，亦為虛妄，非是真實；亦有亦無，則具足斷常；非有非無，是愚癡論。若具足四句，則備起眾見；都無四句，便為大斷。今明若能離此等計，心無所依，不知何以目之，強稱為實相。此之實相是迷悟之本，悟之則有三乘賢聖，故《涅槃》云「見中道者凡有三種：下智觀故得聲聞菩提，中智觀故得緣覺菩提，上智觀故得無上菩提。」迷此實相便有六道生死紛然，故《淨名經》云「從無住本立一切法」。然實相體含眾德，無有出法性外；用窮善巧，備一切門。今略舉其二：一者約人明體用、二者約法明體用。人明體用者，下偈云「諸法實相中，非我非無我。」此就人明實相體。諸佛或說我、或說於無我，我無我體用既爾，常無常、真俗、三乘一乘、五部十八部、涅槃經三十餘諍論，乃至五百部、八萬四千法門皆是實相用，以四門通之無相違背：一者隨世界故說、二對治故說、三各各為人說、四依第一義門說，故學此論者遍悟一切佛教。二就法明體用者，下偈「一切實不實，亦實亦不實，非實非非實。」此之四門皆是實相方便，遊心四門便入實相。故以四門為用、不四為體，後當具足。近從〈業品〉生，前品舉重化，明人法因果皆畢竟空，即是諸法實相。外人云：若爾者，云何得入？今答此問，明入實相之先，須洗汝能入所入見乃可得入，故有此品來也。問：法是何義？答：以理言之，只是一正法，如云「正法性遠離」等。又云「一切無礙人，一道出生死」等。若隨義用，有三種法：一者軌則名法，即是佛理教法。二者自體名法，亦得通理教，謂色心等。三者意識所緣名之為法，此約境為言，眼所緣為色，乃至身所緣名觸，今是意之所緣故名為法。意識所緣，通得上來十七界法，故名法界也。《大論》十八明識所緣法、智所緣法。諸外道亦有此三法，但外道更別有神所緣法。數論同明此之三法，但無別神所緣法耳。《十地經》云「爾時過意界，住在智業中」，故知顛倒所緣皆是幻化不可得也。問：《淨名經》云「但除其病而不除其法」，今品何故稱破法耶？答：不除其法，凡有二種：一者以病故見法，猶如眼病故見空華，無法可除，故云不除其法；今云破法者，破其病法耳。二者《涅槃經》云「但斷取著，不斷我見，我見者即佛性也。」今亦爾，但破外人取著之心，亦不破諸法實相，故但云觀法也。

The reason why this chapter follows is that there are, in all, three meanings: First, to elucidate the comprehensive contemplative practice: previously, karma was contemplated as empty; now, dharmas (phenomena) are contemplated as empty. Second, it follows in order to refute errors: from the first chapter up to the contemplation of karma, it was a refutation of the specific among dharmas, which is thus a specific contemplation; now, both persons and dharmas are collectively designated as dharmas, which is called a collective contemplation. Therefore, the treatise has collective and specific refutations of the four conditions, and the sūtras explain the Dharma in both broad and concise aspects. Question: Is it called 'contemplating dharmas' in order to refute inverted dharmas, or is it called 'dharmas' in order to contemplate the true mark of all dharmas? Answer: Both meanings are present. First, seeking inverted dharmas, none can be found; hence it is called 'contemplating dharmas'. Second, contemplating that whether persons or dharmas, the myriad transformations, though diverse, are all the dharma of the true mark, causing those who pursue the principle to thereby awaken and enter. Thus the text says, 'If the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas is the true mark, how does one enter it?' This is the main intent. Question: Since this treatise refutes all falsity, deviation, and bias, and reveals the true mark of the right path, why is this not stated right at the beginning? Or otherwise, why is it explained in the middle rather than clarified only at the very end? Answer: Briefly, there are two meanings. First, in terms of the sequence of refuting and elucidating: heterodox teachings obscured the correct sūtras, whose meaning was not clearly illuminated; it was necessary first to refute the heterodox so that the profound principle would be revealed, and therefore it could only be stated when reaching this section. Furthermore, the twenty-five chapters of this treatise broadly open into three sections of intent: the first seventeen chapters refute and wash away persons and dharmas, illuminating the true mark of all dharmas; now, this single chapter next clarifies the attainment of benefit; from the chapter 'Examination of Time' onward, it further refutes grasping and reiterates the true mark. Question: Why make this division? Answer: Relying on the explanation of the 'Chapter on Practicing in Accord' in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it first explains the bodhisattva's practicing in accord with prajñā; next, in the middle, it clarifies the attainment of benefit, meaning the eradication of grave sins and the protection of the devas; and after explaining the attainment of benefit, it clarifies practicing in accord. Since the Tathāgata's preaching of the sūtras has these three, the bodhisattva's composition of the treatise is also like this. From above down to here, it has refuted the heterodox and revealed the correct, but the listeners did not know what kind of benefit was gained by refuting and revealing; therefore, this chapter clarifies its attainment of benefit. Although the attainment of benefit is complete, doubts and grasping are not yet exhausted, so it further refutes the heterodox and reiterates the true mark. Moreover, having heard of the attainment of benefit, they take delight in hearing further; though having obtained benefit previously, they later advance into deeper awakening. Furthermore, though later obtaining benefit, there is nothing obtained in what is obtained; hence it further refutes the heterodox and reveals the true mark. Third, from above down to here, the substance of the true mark was illuminated; this single chapter illuminates the function of the true mark. Question: What is the substance of the true mark? What is the function of the true mark? Answer: The ninety-six paths all say, 'In the whole world, I alone am the one; in the whole world, mine alone is the single way.' Each regards their own teaching as real and all others as false. The Abhidharma followers regard the principle of the four noble truths as real. The Tattvasiddhi says, 'Only the single equality of the principle of the truth of cessation, emptiness, is called real.' The Mahāyāna of the Southern Lands regards the principle of refuting truths as real. The true-mark prajñā of the Northern Lands is regarded as real. Even the scholars of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha call the principle of the two non-selves, the principle of the three natures, and the amalavijñāna real, and all else false. Now, examining them collectively: if there is a single principle, it is called the view of permanence, which is falsity and not called real; if there is no single principle, this again is a wrong view, which is also falsity and not real; if it is both existent and non-existent, then it fully possesses annihilation and permanence; if it is neither existent nor non-existent, it is foolish discourse. If all four positions are fully maintained, then all views arise completely; if all four positions are entirely absent, it becomes a great annihilation. Now it is explained that if one can be free from these imputations, the mind having nowhere to depend, one knows not what to designate it, and so it is forcibly called the 'true mark'. This true mark is the root of delusion and awakening: if one awakens to it, there are the worthy ones and sages of the three vehicles; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, 'Those who see the middle way are of three kinds in all: by contemplating with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; by contemplating with medium wisdom, one attains pratyekabuddha bodhi; by contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains unsurpassable bodhi.' Deluded regarding this true mark, the saṃsāra of the six destinies unfolds in turmoil; hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says, 'From the non-abiding root all dharmas are established.' Yet the substance of the true mark contains all virtues, none lying outside the dharma-nature; its function exhausts skillful means, fully possessing all gates. Now I briefly raise two of them: first, clarifying substance and function in terms of persons; second, clarifying substance and function in terms of dharmas. Clarifying substance and function in terms of persons: a lower verse says, 'Within the true mark of all dharmas, there is neither self nor non-self.' This clarifies the substance of the true mark in terms of persons. The Buddhas sometimes speak of a self, and sometimes speak of non-self. Since substance and function are thus for self and non-self, permanence and impermanence, the ultimate and the conventional, the three vehicles and the one vehicle, the five divisions and the eighteen divisions, the more than thirty disputes of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, and even the five hundred divisions and eighty-four thousand Dharma-doors are all the function of the true mark. Opening them via the four gates, none are mutually contradictory: first, speaking in accord with the mundane world; second, speaking as an antidote; third, speaking individually for each person; fourth, speaking relying on the gate of the ultimate truth. Therefore, those who study this treatise comprehensively awaken to all the Buddha's teachings. Second, clarifying substance and function in terms of dharmas: a lower verse says, 'Everything is real and unreal, both real and unreal, neither real nor unreal.' These four gates are all skillful means of the true mark; wandering one's mind through the four gates, one enters the true mark. Thus, the four gates are taken as the function, and the non-four as the substance, which will be fully explained later. Proximately, it arises from the 'Examination of Karma': the previous chapter raised the severe retributions, illuminating that persons, dharmas, causes, and effects are all ultimately empty, which is itself the true mark of all dharmas. An opponent says: If so, how can one enter it? Now answering this question, it clarifies that prior to entering the true mark, one must wash away one's views of the enterer and the entered, and only then can one enter; hence this chapter follows. Question: What is the meaning of 'dharma'? Answer: Speaking in terms of principle, there is only the single correct Dharma, as it is said, 'The correct dharma-nature is far removed,' and so on. And it is said, 'All unobstructed persons transcend birth and death by a single way,' and so on. If in accord with meaning and function, there are three kinds of dharmas: First, that which is a model or rule is called a dharma, which is the Buddha's principle and teaching. Second, intrinsic substance is called a dharma, which also extends to both principle and teaching, meaning matter, mind, and so on. Third, the cognitive object of the mental consciousness is called a dharma; this is spoken in terms of the sphere: the object of the eye is form, and so on up to the object of the body being called tangible, and now, being the object of the mind, it is called a dharma. What is cognized by the mental consciousness extends to the preceding seventeen realms of dharmas; hence it is called the realm of dharmas (dharmadhātu). Chapter 18 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa clarifies dharmas as objects of consciousness and dharmas as objects of wisdom. All the heterodox also have these three dharmas, but the heterodox additionally have dharmas as objects of the soul (ātman). The Sāṃkhya likewise clarifies these three dharmas, but simply lacks a separate dharma as the object of a soul. The Daśabhūmika Sūtra says, 'At that time, transcending the realm of mind, one abides in the activity of wisdom.' Thus we know that inverted cognitive objects are all illusions and transformations, which cannot be grasped. Question: The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says, 'Only eliminate the disease, do not eliminate the dharma.' Why does this chapter speak of refuting dharmas? Answer: Not eliminating the dharma has two aspects in all: First, seeing a dharma is due to the disease, just as seeing sky-flowers is due to eye disease; there is no actual dharma that can be eliminated, and thus it is said 'not eliminating the dharma'; now speaking of 'refuting dharmas' means merely refuting their diseased dharmas. Second, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'Only cut off grasping and clinging, do not cut off the view of self; the view of self is itself Buddha-nature.' It is also like this now: it only refutes the opponent's clinging mind, and does not refute the true mark of all dharmas; hence it merely speaks of 'contemplating dharmas'.