中觀論疏 8.29

8.29

「諸佛以一切智」下，釋第二菩薩法。就釋菩薩法為二：前明菩薩理教、次明得益。今釋此二也。釋理教為二：前釋標二章門、次解釋章門。釋標章門，前釋上半，為二：初明佛內智察緣；「種種為說」下，第二明赴緣說教。初又開三：謂標、釋、結，總明說我無我。「若心未熟者」下，第二別釋我無我。初明為聖凡二人說有我；「又有布施」下，次為凡聖兩人說無我。「生時空生」者，此明不從我生，故云空生，非是明法空也。問：為凡說我無我，於凡有益；為聖說我無我，於聖何利？答：為令聖傳法利人，如為阿難令說如是我聞，如為聖人令傳無我教也。「是故偈中說」下，第三總結。「若於真實中」下，釋第二真實章門。又開四別：一正釋。「問曰」下，第二小乘人問。毘曇人云：無我是實，世俗假名故說有我。《成論》亦然，故云：世諦中有我、第一義無我，是名正見；世諦無我、第一義有我，是名邪見。有所得大乘人執二無我謂是實，亦同此問。故有所得大，終是小乘。今既云：若於實相中不說我非我相，故知無我未為極。「答曰」下，第三破小乘人執。「如《波若》中說」下，第三引大乘為證。「問曰」下，此解第二釋章門偈，前釋實相章門、次釋方便章門。釋實相章門中，前釋上半法說、次釋下半譬說。初有二問答為二：前一問答生起上半偈來意，次一問答料簡心行滅義。問中易解。「答曰」下，有三義，明聖心亦滅：一者涅槃名滅，滅聖心向涅槃，故亦名為滅。第二引例通，初舉空定、次舉滅定，空定為心空、滅定辨心滅。「又亦終歸涅槃」下，第三義，即是《法華經》終歸於空，故聖心亦滅。問：此是何等聖心？答：有為無漏小乘聖心亦滅也。「諸法實相者」下，釋下半譬說。初正釋、次問答料簡，易見也。「問曰若佛不說我非我」下，釋第二方便章門。就中為二：初一問答釋前三句、次一問答釋第四句。初問生起來意。問意云：實相既絕言，云何令人知於實相？答中為三：初總生起四句之意、次列四句章門、三解釋四句。總生起來意有二種：一者明佛有無量方便、二者諸法無決定相，為此因緣可得說於四句。「為眾生故」下，第二列四章門。「一切實者」下，第三釋四章門。前釋一切實一切不實章門，即為二別也。「一切實不實」者下，釋第三句。「眾生有三品」者，問：何故不命初即為三根開於四句，至第三句方辨三根耶？答：今欲依偈四句次第，故次第而釋。但第三句與前二句相違，故以三根而解釋之，明不相違，即是各各為人悉檀。若據教門應是相違，以為人不同，故不相違也。即此一半偈具四悉檀，為三根不同即各各，治三根病為對治，此四句是世諦即世界悉檀，因四悟不四謂第一義。四悉檀通十二部經八萬法藏，今一半偈亦爾。「非實非不實」者，釋第四句。「問曰」下，釋偈中第四句「是名諸佛法」也。

From “The Buddhas, with omniscience” downward explains the second section, the teachings for bodhisattvas. In explaining the teachings for bodhisattvas, there are two parts: first, explaining the principle and teaching for bodhisattvas; next, explaining the attainment of benefit. Now these two are explained. Explaining the principle and teaching has two parts: first, explaining the introduction of the two section-headings; next, commenting on the section-headings. In explaining the introduction of the headings, first explaining the first half-verse has two parts: first, explaining that the Buddha's inner wisdom observes conditions; from “speaking variously” downward, second, explaining that he provides teachings according to conditions. The first part further opens into three: namely, heading, explanation, and conclusion, which generally explain teaching self and no-self. From “If one's mind is not yet mature” downward, the second part individually explains self and no-self. First, it explains speaking of having a self for both holy and ordinary persons; from “Furthermore, there is giving” downward, next, it explains speaking of no-self for both ordinary and holy persons. “At birth it is born empty” explains that it is not born from a self, hence it is said to be “born empty,” not that it explains the emptiness of dharmas. Question: Speaking of self and no-self for ordinary persons is beneficial to ordinary persons; when speaking of self and no-self for holy persons, what benefit is there for holy persons? Answer: It is to enable the holy ones to transmit the Dharma and benefit people, just as for Ānanda it caused him to say “Thus have I heard,” and just as for holy persons it causes them to transmit the teaching of no-self. From “Therefore it is said in a verse” downward is the third, the general conclusion. From “If within ultimate reality” downward explains the second section-heading on the real. This further opens into four divisions: first, the correct explanation. From “The question asks” downward is the second, a question by a Hīnayāna person. The Abhidharma followers say: No-self is real, and based on worldly provisional designations, one speaks of having a self. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra is also like this, hence saying: Having a self within conventional truth and no-self in the ultimate sense is called right view; no-self within conventional truth and having a self in the ultimate sense is called wrong view. Mahāyāna followers with apprehension grasp at the two kinds of no-self as being real, which also accords with this question. Therefore, Mahāyāna with apprehension is ultimately Hīnayāna. Now, since it says: “If within the true nature of things, one does not speak of marks of self and non-self,” one knows that no-self is not yet ultimate. From “The answer states” downward is the third, refuting the grasping of Hīnayāna persons. From “As stated in the Prajñā[pāramitā]” downward is the third [division], citing the Mahāyāna as proof. From “The question asks” downward explains the verses commenting on the section-headings: first, explaining the section-heading on the real mark; next, explaining the section-heading on expedient means. In explaining the section-heading on the real mark, first, it explains the doctrinal explanation of the first half-verse; next, it explains the analogical explanation of the second half-verse. The first part has two questions and answers, making two sections: the first question and answer brings forth the purpose of the first half-verse; the second question and answer distinguishes the meaning of the cessation of mental activity. The question is easy to understand. From “The answer states” downward, there are three meanings explaining that the holy mind also ceases: first, nirvāṇa is called cessation, and the holy mind being extinguished toward nirvāṇa is therefore also called cessation. Second, citing analogies to resolve it: first, bringing up the samādhi of emptiness, and next, bringing up the samādhi of cessation; the samādhi of emptiness concerns the emptiness of mind, and the samādhi of cessation distinguishes the cessation of mind. From “Furthermore, it ultimately returns to nirvāṇa” downward is the third meaning: namely, as in the Lotus Sūtra, it ultimately returns to emptiness, so the holy mind also ceases. Question: What kind of holy mind is this? Answer: The conditioned, undefiled holy mind of the Hīnayāna also ceases. From “The true nature of all phenomena” downward explains the analogical explanation of the second half-verse. First is the correct explanation; next are question and answer distinguishing it, which is easy to see. From “The question asks: If the Buddha does not speak of self or non-self” downward explains the second section-heading on expedient means. Within this are two parts: the first question and answer explains the first three lines; the next question and answer explains the fourth line. The first question brings forth the intention. The intention of the question is: Since the real mark transcends words, how can people be caused to know the real mark? In the answer there are three parts: first, generally bringing forth the intent of the four propositions; next, listing the headings of the four propositions; third, explaining the four propositions. Generally bringing forth the intent has two kinds: first, explaining that the Buddha possesses limitless expedient means; second, all phenomena have no determinate mark; due to these causes and conditions, one may speak of the four propositions. From “For the sake of sentient beings” downward is the second part, listing the four headings. From “All is real” downward is the third part, explaining the four headings. First, explaining the headings of all is real and all is unreal constitutes two divisions. “All is real and unreal” explains the third line. Regarding “Sentient beings are of three grades,” question: Why not open the four propositions for the three faculties right from the beginning, but only distinguish the three faculties upon reaching the third line? Answer: Here, it is desired to follow the sequence of the four lines of the verse, hence it is explained in sequence. However, the third line contradicts the previous two lines, so it is explained using the three faculties to clarify that they are not contradictory, which is precisely the individual adaptation (pratipuruṣa-siddhānta). If judged by doctrinal formulation, they would be contradictory; but because the persons are different, they are not contradictory. Thus this single half-verse is endowed with the four siddhāntas: being for different three faculties is the individual [siddhānta]; curing the illnesses of the three faculties is the antidotal [siddhānta]; these four propositions being conventional truth is the worldly siddhānta; awakening to the non-four through the four is the ultimate siddhānta. The four siddhāntas pervade the twelve divisions of scripture and the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma; this half-verse is also like this. “Neither real nor unreal” explains the fourth line. From “The question asks” downward explains the fourth line in the verse: “This is called the Dharma of all Buddhas.”