中觀論疏 9.3

9.3

問：自上已來品品破因果竟，今何故重說？答：因果是眾義之大宗、立信之根本，惑者多謬，上雖略破，宜須重論在次下也。如外道計邪因邪果四宗不同，大小乘人十家所說，故知因果難明，須重辨也。二者上來雖破因果為成餘法，如〈因緣品〉破四緣因果為成無生義，乃至〈五陰品〉破因果為成無五陰義，並未正論因果；今欲正論因果，故有此品來也。若逐近來者，從〈時品〉生。外云：無三世之時，寧有因果之法？而因果道理不可令無，故應有時也。問：因果有幾種？答：略有三種。一相生因果，如泥瓶之類；二相緣因果，如捲指之流；三者了因因果，如燈了物萬、行了出法身。問：此品為破因果、為申因果耶？答：品品之中皆有申破二義，求內外大小性實因果皆悉無從，故名破因果。以計性實之人即破因果義，故論主須破之。二者性實因果既除，始得辨因緣因果。既稱因緣，則因果宛然而常寂滅，故因中發觀則戲論斯忘也。

Question: From the beginning up to now, cause and effect have been refuted in chapter after chapter; why are they explained again now? Answer: Cause and effect are the great lineage of all doctrines and the root for establishing faith. Confused people commit many errors regarding them; although briefly refuted above, they ought to be discussed again here in sequence below. For instance, the four tenets of the non-Buddhists asserting erroneous causes and erroneous effects differ, and there are the assertions of the ten schools among Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachers; hence we know that cause and effect are difficult to illuminate and must be analyzed once more. Second, although cause and effect were refuted previously, it was to establish other dharmas—as in the "Chapter on Causes and Conditions" refuting the cause and effect of the four conditions to establish the principle of non-arising, up through the "Chapter on the Five Aggregates" refuting cause and effect to establish the absence of the five aggregates—none of which directly examined cause and effect. Desiring now to examine cause and effect directly, this chapter is therefore introduced. If traced from what immediately precedes, it arises from the "Chapter on Time." The opponent says: If time in the three times does not exist, how could the dharmas of cause and effect exist? Yet the principle of cause and effect cannot be made non-existent; therefore, time must exist. Question: How many kinds of cause and effect are there? Answer: Briefly, there are three kinds: first, cause and effect of mutual production, like clay and a pot; second, cause and effect of mutual conditioning, like curled fingers; third, cause and effect of revealing causes, like a lamp revealing myriad things or the myriad practices revealing the Dharmakāya. Question: Does this chapter refute cause and effect, or does it elucidate cause and effect? Answer: Within every chapter there are both the refutation and the elucidation. To seek an intrinsically real cause and effect, whether internal or external, Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna, is entirely without foundation; hence it is called refuting cause and effect. Because those who assert an intrinsically real [cause and effect] destroy the meaning of cause and effect, the author of the treatise must refute them. Second, once intrinsically real cause and effect are eliminated, only then can cause and effect of dependent origination be distinguished. Being called dependent origination, cause and effect are vividly evident yet constantly tranquil and extinguished; therefore, generating contemplation within causes, prapañca is forgotten.