中觀論疏 9.12

9.12

品開為八門：一共離門，明無成壞；二盡不盡門；三體相門；四空不空門；五一異門；六生滅門；七斷常門；八三世門。就初為三：一雙標共離二門、次雙釋二門、三雙結二門。初外人問但舉世間者，二十一品破世間法，終此一章故偏問世間。又世間無常之法有於成壞，故偏問世間。「現是敗壞相」者，前二十章論主之難疑無不摧，外人之通言無不屈，故言現是敗壞相。又自上已來舉成門立義，今此一章就壞門立義。現見我眾義並壞，必應有成。答中上半開共離二門明無有壞。所以前明無壞者，由外人謂己義壞，故前檢之。下半共離無成，可解。次三偈釋無成壞，開為三別：初偈釋離成無壞門、第三偈釋離壞無成門、中間一偈釋成壞共無成壞門。既是兩離，所以離釋；以是其共，所以共釋。並易見也。問：文何故舉生死破外人耶？答：外謂自立屈是死，論主通是生，故破之亦不許外死。汝上來得生，今可死耳；竟未曾生，今云何死？可謂求生不得、求死亦不得也。「無常未曾有不在諸法時」者，外人四相常俱，既有生住即有異滅隨之。上來就大期麁死生顯無成壞，今明念念細生滅亦無成壞，又即破此麁細二種生滅也。長行還依前章門偈次第釋之，不依後三偈釋之。初釋共離二門無有壞；「若離即壞共壞」下，次釋共離二門無成。初為二別：前釋離成無壞有三，謂標、釋、結。釋中凡有二破：初作無因破；「又成法」下，次作無果破。以壞是成，果成為壞因；既無成因，故無壞果。「是故」下，第三結。破共成有壞亦三，謂標、釋、結。釋中云「法前別成而後有合」者，明成與壞共則成壞，壞與成共則壞成；壞成故無成，無成則無壞。汝今若欲合者，要前兩體各成然後方得合耳，故云法前成而後有合也。汝既不得兩體各成，云何合耶？「合法不離異」者，此縱其別成而兩物共合，則雖合而猶異。如二木共合終自是異，若終自是異終不合也。「若壞離異壞則無因」者，離異者是無異也。縱令成與壞兩合，體無異壞便壞成，則是無成，誰為壞因？故云無因。故異則有因而不合，不異則合而無因。「是故」下，第三結也。「若離壞」下，第二釋共離二門無成義。前雙牒、次雙釋。「分別法者」，是阿毘曇人，謂八相與法體竝起，是則生住相中常有異滅相。故今破之，若常有異滅則無生住。「成壞共無成」者，第三一偈總結。上半雙結、下半偈呵。上半云「成壞共無成」者，此成是義成就之成。以共離二門檢外成壞義並不成就，故云無成也。

The chapter is divided into eight sections: first, the section on togetherness and separation, explaining that there is neither coming-to-be nor dissolution; second, the section on exhaustion and non-exhaustion; third, the section on entity and characteristics; fourth, the section on empty and non-empty; fifth, the section on identity and difference; sixth, the section on origination and cessation; seventh, the section on annihilation and permanence; eighth, the section on the three periods of time. Regarding the first [section], there are three parts: first, doubly setting forth the two gates of togetherness and separation; next, doubly explaining the two gates; third, doubly concluding the two gates. In the initial opponent's question, the reason they mention only the world is that the twenty-first chapter refutes worldly phenomena, and as this single chapter concludes it, they ask specifically about the world. Moreover, worldly impermanent phenomena have coming-to-be and dissolution, so they ask specifically about the world. As for "[it] manifestly has the characteristic of ruin and dissolution," in the preceding twenty chapters, the author's objections left no doubt uncrushed, and the opponent's responses had nowhere to turn, hence it says "manifestly has the characteristic of ruin and dissolution." Furthermore, hitherto their positions were established based on the approach of coming-to-be; now, in this single chapter, their position is established based on the approach of dissolution: "We manifestly see that our various propositions are all destroyed; there must certainly be coming-to-be." In the reply, the first half sets out the two gates of togetherness and separation to clarify that there is no dissolution. The reason dissolution is explained as nonexistent first is that the opponent thought their own proposition had been destroyed, so it is examined first. In the lower half, that there is no coming-to-be either together or separate is understandable. Next, three verses explain that there is neither coming-to-be nor dissolution, divided into three parts: the first verse explains the gate that apart from coming-to-be there is no dissolution; the third verse explains the gate that apart from dissolution there is no coming-to-be; the middle verse explains the gate that coming-to-be and dissolution together have neither coming-to-be nor dissolution. Since they are two separations, they are explained separately; since they are together, they are explained together. Both are readily seen. Question: Why does the text raise birth-and-death to refute the opponent? Answer: The opponent considered the defeat of their own position to be death and the treatise master's refutation to be birth, so in refuting them, he also does not grant the opponent's death. If you had attained birth earlier, you could die now; but since you have never been born, how could you die now? It can be said that seeking birth, one does not find it, and seeking death, one does not find it either. As for "impermanence is never not present in phenomena," the opponent holds that the four characteristics are always concurrent; having birth and abiding, difference and cessation immediately follow. Hitherto, the absence of coming-to-be and dissolution was shown in terms of coarse birth-and-death over a long span; now it is explained that in fine moment-to-moment arising and ceasing there is also no coming-to-be or dissolution; furthermore, this refutes both coarse and fine forms of arising and ceasing. The prose commentary follows the order of the earlier section-heading verses in explaining them, rather than following the latter three verses. First, it explains that under the two gates of togetherness and separation there is no dissolution; from "if separated, then dissolution, together with dissolution" onward, it next explains that under the two gates of togetherness and separation there is no coming-to-be. The first [part] has two divisions: the earlier explanation of no dissolution apart from coming-to-be has three parts—setting forth, explaining, and concluding. Within the explanation there are two refutations: first, making a refutation based on having no cause; from "moreover, a phenomenon that has come to be" onward, next making a refutation based on having no effect. Because dissolution is coming-to-be's effect, and coming-to-be is dissolution's cause; since there is no cause of coming-to-be, there is no effect of dissolution. From "therefore" onward is the third, the conclusion. Refuting that together with coming-to-be there is dissolution also has three parts—setting forth, explaining, and concluding. In the explanation, "a phenomenon is separately formed beforehand and then joined later" means that if coming-to-be is together with dissolution, then coming-to-be is dissolved; if dissolution is together with coming-to-be, then dissolution comes to be. Dissolving coming-to-be means there is no coming-to-be; if there is no coming-to-be, then there is no dissolution. If you now wish them to join, you must first have the two entities separately formed before they can join; hence it says "a phenomenon is formed beforehand and then joined later." Since you cannot have both entities separately formed, how could they join? "Phenomena that join do not part with difference": this concedes that they are separately formed and that the two things join together, yet although joined, they are still different. Just as when two pieces of wood are joined together, in the end they remain distinct; if in the end they remain distinct, in the end they are not joined. "If dissolution parts with difference, dissolution is without cause": "parting with difference" means non-difference. Even if coming-to-be and dissolution join so that their entity is without difference, dissolution would dissolve coming-to-be, which means there is no coming-to-be; what then would serve as the cause of dissolution? Hence it says "without cause." Thus, if different, there is a cause but no joining; if not different, there is joining but no cause. From "therefore" onward is the third, the conclusion. From "if apart from dissolution" onward is the second, explaining that under the two gates of togetherness and separation there is no coming-to-be. First, it doubly quotes; next, it doubly explains. "Those who differentiate phenomena" refers to the Abhidharma masters, who hold that the eight characteristics arise simultaneously with the entity of the phenomenon; thus within the characteristics of birth and abiding there are constantly the characteristics of difference and cessation. Hence now this is refuted: if there are constantly difference and cessation, then there are no birth and abiding. "Coming-to-be and dissolution together have no coming-to-be": the third verse concludes in summary. The first half concludes doubly, and the second half scolds. The first half says "coming-to-be and dissolution together have no coming-to-be": here "coming-to-be" (cheng) means being established in reasoning. Because examining the opponent's doctrine of coming-to-be and dissolution via the two gates of togetherness and separation shows that neither is established, it says there is no coming-to-be.