中觀論疏 8.26

8.26

就文為二：初三句正明方便、第四句總結教意。此中四句為三根菩薩說，一切實一切不實化中根人。喻如開善義，生死涅槃皆是世諦虛假，名為不實；入第一義非生死涅槃，名之為實。第二句亦實亦不實化下根人，如莊嚴義，生死是虛假故不實，涅槃非虛假故實。第三非實非不實為上根菩薩，明生死涅槃未曾是實亦未曾不實，此部得是今龍樹所學意。若三句遣病次第，下根人云：生死不實、涅槃是實。中根人云：此生死涅槃一切不實、非生死非涅槃一切實也。上根人云：非箇非生死非涅槃之實，亦非生死涅槃之不實也。又第一句是一說部義，謂生死涅槃皆是虛假，故言一說。第二句是出世說部義，生死世間法從不真實因生，故名為實。又將此文望今攝大乘等學者備此二門，分別、依他二性是名不實，分別無相依他無生名真實性，則同下根人義。若以三性為不實，三無性理稱為真實，是中根人義。彼不說非三性非三無性，故無上根人義也。天親之意乃當有之，而學人不稟龍樹之風，致闕此玄宗一句也。「是名諸佛法」者，第二結四句教意。若因此四門悟入絕四之理，此則四種名為佛法，亦四種為門。若守其四句，不能因四悟無四，各執作解者，則此四句非是佛法亦不名門，以其不能通入理故。若爾，龍樹之風四論學者此之四句並是今時方便巧用，舊義但得方便用中之一枝。又不識此一是方便而執權為實，甚可傷哉。他云：毘曇見有得道，成實見空得道。今明作空有解並不得道，因空有悟實相方能得道。故下云「得實相者有三乘人」耳。問：三乘人同解實相，何異？答：二乘隨分見，菩薩盡其原。《智度論》云「二乘見人法空如毛孔空，菩薩如十方空。」問：經何處有此三方便文？答：《大品．如化品》云「為新發意菩薩說生滅如化，不生不滅不如化」，此下根人義也。「為久發意菩薩說生滅不生滅皆悉如化」，此中根人義也。又云「菩薩不行真實、不行無真實法」，上根人義也。問：《智度論》亦引此偈解第一義悉檀。第一義悉檀既絕四句，云何將四句釋第一義悉檀？答：智度論師亦無好通。今所明者如前釋之義，此四句是門，因此四門入第一義無言之理，故將四句以釋於無四。問：何故將四句釋無四？答：四句之道此不可言，凡論發言必有四句，要因四句之言得顯無言，如因指得月。又非但因四句言得顯無言，即須知此四句本來不四，名四句絕故。所詮之理絕言，詮理之言常絕，故天女呵身子云：「汝乃知解脫無言，而未悟言即解脫。」今亦爾，非但理絕於四，即言亦絕四。又言既絕四，即絕四常言，勿謂絕四之理有理存焉而不可言。是故文殊之言常絕，淨名之默常言。在言既爾，心行亦然。所絕之理絕心，即絕理之心常絕。須深得此意，可用通方等經。問：今文何故前明中根、次辨下根、後辨上根？答：三根實應次第，但此中論四句次第，不明三根次第也。問：為三人有二根、一人三耶？答：具此二義。一人三者，從下入中、中轉為上也。「自知不隨他」，第二示得解人相。前明方便實則是理教，今明稟教悟理故發生二慧。問：何故明得解人相？答：造論影傍大乘經。《波若》說菩薩所行之法，亦明得解人相。故《大品》云「欲瞋癡斷，是性相貌。」論解云「三毒斷，是悟波若人相。」〈趣智品〉明行波若人有五種相：一於諸法不著、二不為六弊所使、三具行六度、四不以他語為堅要、五聞波若信樂無厭。不以他語為堅要者，廣為種種說法，其心不動。又《大品》就二種門說波若：一就法門說波若、二就人門說波若。今亦爾，上就法門說實相方便，今就人門說實相方便。就三偈開為二別：前二偈明得實方便二智益、次一偈明得中道大涅槃益。所以明此二者，為對前聲聞。聲聞初明生法二空教，次稟教得空無我智及二涅槃益；今菩薩亦爾，前明絕四之理四句之教，稟教悟理故亦得二益，謂權實二智及大涅槃。權實二智為因，大涅槃為果。又權實二智則是德無不圓，大涅槃果謂累無不寂。累無不寂，不可為有；德無不圓，不可為無。既稟中道，發生正觀也。又前明二智則菩提果，後明大涅槃謂果果也。不開聲聞菩薩兩教及大小二人益者，並失此文意也。「自知不隨他」者，天魔外道雖有形聲兩亂，不能干之。《華嚴》云「有所聞法即自開解，不由他悟。」「寂滅無戲論」者，無生死可捨，無涅槃可取，故名寂滅。離愛見二種戲論，名無戲論。「無異無分別」者，既無二種戲論，則知法無有無之異、心無有無分別。以心無有無分別，故無心於內；法無有無異相，故無數於外。彼此已寂滅，浩然大均，名為實相。「若法從緣生」下，第二明得方便慧益。上了生滅無生滅；今悟無生滅生滅，即是世諦。世諦雖有萬化不同，因果是立信之根、諸法之本，故偏說之。上半明因緣因果不一不異，如捲指不同，不可言一；更無兩體，不可言異。故云「若法從緣生不即不異因」，即破僧佉、衛世一異兩部，亦除上座、大眾一異二宗。下半明因緣因果離於斷常，因果一即是常、異即是斷。此中言實相者，蓋是世諦之實。以俗既稱諦，故名為實，異上實也。又能如此解因果不常不斷、不一不異，名之為實；若異此者，即名虛妄。「不一亦不異」下，第二明得涅槃果益。上半法說。此明不一不異，異上不一不異。上不一不異就世諦因果明不一不異，今明中道涅槃不一不異、不常不斷，不見六道生死之異，亦不見涅槃滅六道為一，不一故不常、不異故不斷。下半舉譬說，明涅槃如天甘露，世間得甘露故無老病死，實相涅槃是真甘露味，服此味者累無不寂、德無不圓。

Regarding the text, there are two parts: the first three lines properly elucidate expedients, and the fourth line summarizes the intention of the teaching. Here, the four propositions are spoken for bodhisattvas of three faculties: 'all is real, all is unreal' converts persons of medium faculties. For example, like the meaning of Kaishan, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both conventional truths and false, and are thus termed 'unreal'; entering the ultimate truth, there is neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa, which is termed 'real.' The second proposition, 'both real and unreal,' converts persons of lower faculties: like the meaning of Zhuangyan, saṃsāra is provisional and therefore unreal, while nirvāṇa is not provisional and therefore real. The third, 'neither real nor unreal,' is for bodhisattvas of higher faculties, clarifying that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa have never been real, nor have they ever been unreal; this point captures the intent of what Nāgārjuna now studies. If one takes the sequence in which the three lines eliminate afflictive views: the person of lower faculties says that saṃsāra is unreal and nirvāṇa is real; the person of medium faculties says that this saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are all unreal, and neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa is all real; the person of higher faculties says that there is neither that reality of non-saṃsāra and non-nirvāṇa, nor the unreality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Furthermore, the first proposition is the doctrine of the Ekavyāvahārika school, which holds that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both provisional, and therefore it is called 'one convention.' The second proposition is the doctrine of the Lokottaravāda school: worldly phenomena of saṃsāra arise from unreal causes, and are therefore termed real. Furthermore, if one compares this text to scholars of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha today, they possess these two gates: the two natures of discrimination and dependence are termed unreal, while the signlessness of discrimination and the non-arising of dependence are termed the perfected nature, which corresponds to the meaning of the person of lower faculties; if one takes the three natures as unreal and the principle of the three non-natures as real, this is the meaning of the person of medium faculties. They do not teach 'neither the three natures nor the three non-natures,' and therefore lack the meaning of the person of higher faculties. Although Vasubandhu's intention ought to have possessed this, scholars do not inherit Nāgārjuna's style, leading to the omission of this single line on the profound lineage. 'This is called the Dharma of the Buddhas' is the second part, concluding with the intention of the teaching of the four propositions. If, relying on these four gates, one awakens to and enters the principle that transcends the four [propositions], then these four kinds are called the Buddha-Dharma, and the four kinds are also gates. If one clings to their four propositions and cannot awaken to the absence of the four by means of the four, each grasping them to formulate an understanding, then these four propositions are neither the Buddha-Dharma nor called gates, because they cannot lead into the principle. If that is so, in Nāgārjuna's style and for scholars of the Four Treatises, all four propositions are the clever application of expedients in the present; the old interpretations only attained a single branch within the application of expedients. Moreover, failing to recognize this one as an expedient and grasping the provisional as the real is truly lamentable! Others say: the Abhidharma attains the Path through seeing existence; the Tattvasiddhi attains the Path through seeing emptiness. Now we clarify that formulating an understanding of emptiness or existence does not lead to the Path; only by awakening to the real mark by means of emptiness and existence can one attain the Path. Therefore it says below: 'those who attain the real mark are practitioners of the three vehicles.' Question: If practitioners of the three vehicles equally understand the real mark, what is the difference? Answer: The two vehicles see it according to their capacity; bodhisattvas exhaust its source. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'The two vehicles see the emptiness of persons and dharmas like the space in a pore; bodhisattvas see it like the space of the ten directions.' Question: Where in the sūtras does this text of the three expedients appear? Answer: The 'Ru hua pin' (Chapter on Being Like an Illusion) of the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: 'For newly resolved bodhisattvas, it explains that arising and ceasing are like an illusion, and non-arising and non-ceasing are not like an illusion'—this is the meaning for persons of lower faculties. 'For bodhisattvas of long resolution, it explains that arising and ceasing as well as non-arising and non-ceasing are all entirely like an illusion'—this is the meaning for persons of medium faculties. It also says: 'A bodhisattva does not practice real dharmas, nor does he practice non-real dharmas'—this is the meaning for persons of higher faculties. Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also cites this verse to explain the ultimate-truth siddhānta. Since the ultimate-truth siddhānta transcends the four propositions, how can one use the four propositions to explain the ultimate-truth siddhānta? Answer: The masters of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also lacked a good resolution. What is now clarified is like the previously explained meaning: these four propositions are gates, and through these four gates one enters the ineffable principle of the ultimate truth; therefore, the four propositions are used to explain the absence of the four. Question: Why use the four propositions to explain the absence of the four? Answer: The path of the four propositions is ineffable here; whenever one speaks, it necessarily entails four propositions. One must depend on words of the four propositions to reveal the wordless, like pointing at the moon with a finger. Furthermore, not only is the wordless revealed through words of the four propositions, but one must also know that these four propositions are fundamentally not four, which is called the transcendence of the four propositions. The principle that is expressed transcends words, and the words that express the principle are ever transcendent; thus the heavenly maiden rebuked Śāriputra, saying: 'You only know that liberation is wordless, but have not awakened to words being liberation itself.' It is the same now: not only does the principle transcend the four, but words also transcend the four. Moreover, since words transcend the four, transcending the four is constant speech; do not say that the principle transcending the four is an existing principle that cannot be spoken. Therefore Mañjuśrī's words are ever transcendent, and Vimalakīrti's silence is ever speech. If it is so with words, the activities of mind are also like this: the principle that is cut off transcends the mind, and the mind that cuts off the principle is ever transcendent. One must deeply grasp this meaning; it can be used to penetrate the Vaipulya sūtras. Question: Why does the present text explain the medium faculties first, then the lower faculties, and finally the higher faculties? Answer: The three faculties ought indeed to be in sequence, but this commentary follows the sequence of the four propositions, not the sequence of the three faculties. Question: Are there two faculties among three persons, or three faculties in one person? Answer: It possesses both meanings. Three in one person means entering the medium from the lower, and transforming the medium into the higher. 'Self-known, not following another' is the second part, showing the characteristics of the person who attains understanding. The preceding elucidated that the expedient and the real are principle and teaching; now it clarifies that by receiving the teaching and awakening to the principle, the two wisdoms are produced. Question: Why clarify the characteristics of the person who attains understanding? Answer: Composing treatises shadows the Mahāyāna sūtras. The Prajñāpāramitā speaks of the practices performed by bodhisattvas, and also elucidates the characteristics of persons who attain understanding. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśati says: 'The cutting off of desire, anger, and delusion is the characteristic of their nature.' The commentary explains: 'The cutting off of the three poisons is the characteristic of the person who awakens to prajñā.' The 'Qu zhi pin' (Chapter on Approaching Wisdom) explains five kinds of characteristics of a person practicing prajñā: first, not clinging to dharmas; second, not being driven by the six faults; third, fully practicing the six perfections; fourth, not taking others' words as definitive; fifth, hearing prajñā with faithful delight without satiety. 'Not taking others' words as definitive' means that though various teachings are spoken extensively, his mind does not waver. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśati explains prajñā through two gates: first, explaining prajñā through the Dharma gate; second, explaining prajñā through the person gate. It is the same now: above, the real mark and expedients were explained through the Dharma gate; now, the real mark and expedients are explained through the person gate. Regarding the three verses, they open into two distinctions: the first two verses clarify the benefit of the two wisdoms—the real and the expedient; the next one verse clarifies the benefit of the great nirvāṇa of the middle way. The reason for clarifying these two is to correspond to the preceding Śrāvakas. For Śrāvakas, the teachings on the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas were first elucidated; next, receiving the teaching, they attained the wisdom of emptiness and non-self as well as the benefit of the two nirvāṇas. Bodhisattvas are also like this now: first the principle transcending the four and the teaching of the four propositions were elucidated; receiving the teaching and awakening to the principle, they also attain two benefits, namely the two wisdoms of expedient and real, and great nirvāṇa. The two wisdoms of expedient and real are the cause, and great nirvāṇa is the fruit. Furthermore, the two wisdoms of expedient and real mean that there is no virtue not perfected; the fruit of great nirvāṇa means that there is no burden not pacified. Because there is no burden not pacified, it cannot be called existence; because there is no virtue not perfected, it cannot be called non-existence. Having received the middle way, right contemplation arises. Furthermore, the preceding clarification of the two wisdoms refers to the fruit of bodhi, and the subsequent clarification of great nirvāṇa refers to the fruit of fruits. Those who do not distinguish the two teachings of Śrāvakas and bodhisattvas and the benefits of the two persons, small and great, entirely lose the meaning of this text. 'Self-known, not following another' means that although heavenly demons and non-Buddhists produce the twofold disturbance of form and sound, they cannot perturb him. The Avataṃsaka says: 'Whenever he hears the Dharma, he awakens and understands on his own, not awakened through another.' 'Quiescent and without prapañca' means that there is no saṃsāra to abandon and no nirvāṇa to grasp; therefore it is called quiescent. Being free from the two kinds of prapañca—craving and views—is called 'without prapañca.' 'Without difference and without discrimination' means that having eliminated the two kinds of prapañca, one knows that dharmas have no difference of existence and non-existence, and the mind has no discrimination of existence and non-existence. Because the mind has no discrimination of existence and non-existence, internally there is no mind; because dharmas have no differentiated marks of existence and non-existence, externally there are no objects. Subject and object already quiescent, vast and completely equal, this is called the real mark. 'If a dharma arises from conditions' and below is the second part, clarifying the benefit of attaining expedient wisdom. Above, one understood that arising and ceasing are non-arising and non-ceasing; now one awakens to the fact that non-arising and non-ceasing are arising and ceasing, which is the conventional truth. Although conventional truth has myriad diverse transformations, cause and effect are the root of establishing faith and the basis of all dharmas; therefore they are specifically spoken of. The first half of the verse clarifies that dependent origination, cause and effect, are neither identical nor different: like the clenching of fingers being different, they cannot be said to be identical; having no two separate substances, they cannot be said to be different. Therefore it says: 'If a dharma arises from conditions, it is neither identical to nor different from the cause.' This refutes the two schools of Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika on identity and difference, and also eliminates the two traditions of Sthavira and Mahāsāṃghika on identity and difference. The second half of the verse clarifies that dependent origination, cause and effect, are free from annihilation and permanence: identity of cause and effect is permanence, while difference is annihilation. The mention of 'real mark' here is the reality of conventional truth. Because the conventional is termed a truth, it is called real, which differs from the reality above. Moreover, being able to understand cause and effect as neither permanent nor annihilated, neither identical nor different in this way is termed real; if it differs from this, it is termed false. 'Neither identical nor different' and below is the second part, clarifying the benefit of attaining the fruit of nirvāṇa. The first half of the verse is the explanation in terms of dharmas. This clarification of neither identical nor different differs from the preceding 'neither identical nor different': the preceding 'neither identical nor different' clarified neither identical nor different with respect to cause and effect of conventional truth; now it clarifies that nirvāṇa of the middle way is neither identical nor different, neither permanent nor annihilated, not seeing the difference of saṃsāra in the six destinies, nor seeing nirvāṇa extinguishing the six destinies as an identity; not identical, hence not permanent; not different, hence not annihilated. The second half of the verse speaks by presenting a simile, clarifying that nirvāṇa is like heavenly amṛta: in the world, having obtained amṛta, there is no aging, sickness, or death; the real mark of nirvāṇa is the true taste of amṛta, and one who drinks this taste has no burden not pacified and no virtue not perfected.