中觀論疏 8.24

8.24

「諸佛或說我」下，第二明菩薩觀。問：何故前明聲聞觀、後辨菩薩觀耶？答：欲明從淺至深，故初小後大；又欲迴小入大，故前小後大也。問：大小觀云何有異？答：聲聞觀淺，以我為方便、無我為真實。此中明我與無我皆是方便，非我無我方是真實，則菩薩觀深。既以我無我為方便，聲聞望菩薩則聲聞為方便、菩薩觀為真實，即是《法華》「唯此一事實，餘二則非真。」其文相會也。即時大乘人，若以二我為方便、無我是真實者，猶是聲聞觀耳。又本得大故小成，既不得大亦不成小，故有所得人執二無我乃成虛妄見耳。又菩薩以我無我皆是方便、非我無我乃是實，有所得人執無我皆是得方便耳，既不得實亦不得權。總而言之，有所得人執二無我，大小不收、權實不取也。我無我既方便，三性三無性方便、非三性非三無性方是真實，一切皆例。問：何以知前是聲聞觀、後是菩薩觀？答：即簡淺深之言證之，故知爾也。又聲聞之人修無我觀，因欲求二涅槃果，但是自度之義。上來正明此法，故知是聲聞觀；今此章廣辨菩薩無方化物具一切教門，故知是菩薩觀。又下長行青目釋菩薩觀引《大品》故。菩薩有我亦非行、無我亦非行，蓋是長行自作此引，非講者穿鑿。

From "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self" onwards is the second section, explaining the contemplation of bodhisattvas. Question: Why is the contemplation of śrāvakas explained first and that of bodhisattvas explained after? Answer: In order to explain the progression from the shallow to the deep, the lesser [vehicle] comes first and the greater after; furthermore, in order to redirect from the lesser into the greater, the lesser is first and the greater after. Question: How do the contemplations of the great and the small differ? Answer: The contemplation of the śrāvaka is shallow; it takes "self" as expedient and "non-self" as real. Here it is explained that both self and non-self are expedients, and neither-self-nor-non-self is real; thus the contemplation of the bodhisattva is deep. Since it takes self and non-self as expedients, looking from the perspective of the bodhisattva, the śrāvaka is expedient and the contemplation of the bodhisattva is real; this coincides with the text of the Lotus Sūtra: "Only this one matter is real; the other two are not real." At present, if Mahāyāna practitioners consider the two selves as expedients and non-self as real, that is still merely the contemplation of the śrāvaka. Furthermore, it is originally because one attains the great that the small is accomplished; since they do not attain the great, neither do they accomplish the small. Therefore, when those with attachment cling to the two non-selves, it merely becomes a deluded view. Moreover, the bodhisattva takes self and non-self as both being expedients, and neither-self-nor-non-self as real; when those with attachment cling to non-self, they merely grasp an expedient, attaining neither the real nor the expedient. In summary, when those with attachment cling to the two non-selves, they are not subsumed under either the great or the small, and they grasp neither the expedient nor the real. Since self and non-self are expedients, the three natures and three non-natures are expedients, and neither-the-three-natures-nor-the-three-non-natures is real; everything follows this pattern. Question: How is it known that the former is the contemplation of śrāvakas and the latter is that of bodhisattvas? Answer: It is known precisely by corroborating the statements distinguishing the shallow from the deep. Furthermore, when śrāvakas cultivate the contemplation of non-self, it is because they seek the two fruits of nirvāṇa, which is solely the meaning of saving oneself. What preceded this strictly explained this dharma, hence we know it is the contemplation of śrāvakas. Now, this section broadly explains that the bodhisattva transforms sentient beings without fixed methods, fully possessing all doctrinal approaches; hence we know it is the contemplation of bodhisattvas. Moreover, in the prose below, Piṅgala explains the contemplation of bodhisattvas by citing the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā: for a bodhisattva, possessing a self is not practice, and non-self is also not practice. This is an citation made by the prose commentary itself, not the lecturer's forced interpretation.