中觀論疏 9.29

9.29

「若不因五陰」下，第三前後破，即破大乘計人是佛。三偈為二：初兩偈破不得先人後陰故有人、第二一偈破不得前陰後人故有人。初又二：前偈縱開、次偈奪破。上半縱未受五陰前有如來，此可有三義：一者五陰成人，人御五陰，人與五陰不得先後。初偈上半明縱法身佛昔未受五陰，先有本身如來也。下半明縱今受五陰，故名為迹身如來也。問：此是誰義？答：〈本住品〉未受諸根先有本住，後方受諸根。此是外道義也。自上二門直就陰中求假實如來不可得，今欲窮其根本，故就前後責也。二者小乘人謂前有人修行滿，後受相好之身，及受五陰法身，故名為佛。三者大乘人云：未受王宮五陰之時，前有本地法身，法身即是我身，然後以本垂迹故受王宮五陰之身。故今上半牒本、下半牒迹。「今實不受陰」下，第二偈奪破，具破三家義。破初義者，上半還奪前上半。今者，今本身也，明本身未受陰時無有如來。所以然者，以會五陰故名如來，如未有指則前無有捲。下半奪下半。昔不受既無如來者，今將何物受五陰？故云「若以不受無今當云何有」也。破第二小乘義者，在凡之時未受五陰既無如來，今將何物受妙五陰及五分身耶？破第三大乘義者，以待迹故名之為本，未垂迹時則無迹可待，云何有本？既無有本，以何受王宮五陰名為迹耶？此正呵大乘人明以本垂迹。故肇師云：「本迹雖殊，不思議一也。」既本迹皆不思議，故知非定先有也。

From "If not dependent on the five aggregates" below is the third [section], refutation in terms of prior and posterior, which refutes the Mahāyāna conception that the person is the Buddha. The three verses are divided into two parts: the first two verses refute that there is a person because it is impossible for the person to be prior and the aggregates posterior; the second single verse refutes that there is a person because it is impossible for the aggregates to be prior and the person posterior. The first part also has two aspects: the preceding verse provisionally grants [the thesis], and the following verse deprives and refutes [it]. The first half-verse provisionally grants that there was a Tathāgata before appropriating the five aggregates; this can have three meanings. First, the five aggregates constitute the person, and the person governs the five aggregates; person and five aggregates cannot be prior and posterior [to each other]. The first half-verse clarifies provisionally granting that the dharmakāya Buddha formerly had not yet appropriated the five aggregates, and that the fundamental Tathāgata existed beforehand. The second half clarifies provisionally granting that he now appropriates the five aggregates, and is therefore called the trace-body (vestige-body) Tathāgata. Question: Whose doctrine is this? Answer: In the "Chapter on the Prior Entity", before appropriating the sense organs, the prior entity existed first, and only afterward did it appropriate the sense organs. This is a non-Buddhist doctrine. The preceding two gates simply sought a provisional or real Tathāgata within the aggregates and found none; now, wishing to exhaust its root, [the author] examines it in terms of prior and posterior. Second, the Hīnayāna adherents claim that first a person completes their cultivation, and afterward receives the body with marks and signs and receives the five-aggregate dharmakāya, and is therefore called a Buddha. Third, the Mahāyāna adherents say: Before receiving the five aggregates in the royal palace, there previously existed the fundamental dharmakāya; the dharmakāya is the true self, and thereafter, manifesting traces from the fundamental, he received the body of five aggregates in the royal palace. Therefore, the first half-verse now takes up the fundamental, and the second half takes up the traces. From "Now in reality he does not appropriate the aggregates" below, the second verse deprives and refutes, thoroughly refuting the positions of the three schools. Refuting the first position: the first half takes back the preceding first half. "Now" refers to the fundamental body at present, clarifying that when the fundamental body had not yet appropriated the aggregates, there was no Tathāgata. Why is this so? Because it is called a Tathāgata only in association with the five aggregates; just as when there are not yet fingers, there is previously no fist. The second half takes back the preceding second half: if formerly, having not appropriated, there was no Tathāgata, what entity would now appropriate the five aggregates? Therefore it says, "If through not appropriating he does not exist, how should he exist now?" Refuting the second Hīnayāna position: at the time of an ordinary being, having not yet appropriated the five aggregates, there was already no Tathāgata; what entity now appropriates the wondrous five aggregates and the fivefold body? Refuting the third Mahāyāna position: it is termed "fundamental" only in relation to traces; before traces are manifested, there are no traces to relate to—how could there be a fundamental? Since there is no fundamental, by what could he appropriate the royal palace's five aggregates and be called a trace? This directly reproves the Mahāyāna adherents' explanation of manifesting traces from the fundamental. Hence Master Zhao said: "Though fundamental and traces differ, their inconceivable unity is one." Since both fundamental and traces are inconceivable, one knows that they definitely do not exist beforehand.