中觀論疏 9.30

9.30

「若其未有受」下，第二章破法前人後而有人義。問：此是誰義？答：佛法大小乘人云要由五陰和合方有於人，故法在前而人在後。破云：人為能受、法為所受，若未有人能受，則不得有所受也。前兩偈即是借法破人，今借人破法也。「無有無受法」者，承上「所受不名受」文生。所受既不名受，則無所受五陰。既無所受五陰，又無能受之人，無能受所受以何為如來耶，故「無有無受法而名為如來」。又一意：前既無受陰法故，後即無有如來也。「若於一異中」者，此第四總結破。上來破人既竟，故須總結也。一異中求不得，先結上第二自他門。自有佛體是異，因他有是一。五求不得，却結第一五求門也。「云何受中有」，結第三先後門也。以上有三門破，今還結三也。又此文逐近生者，釋成先後也。凡論先後，不出一異及以五種，一異五種求之既無，何得言五陰中有如來耶？

From "If there were not yet an appropriation" below is the second section, refuting the doctrine that there is a person with phenomena being prior and the person posterior. Question: Whose doctrine is this? Answer: Followers of the Buddha's teaching, both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, say that a person exists only by virtue of the combination of the five aggregates, and so phenomena are prior while the person is posterior. The refutation says: The person is the appropriator, and phenomena are the appropriated; if there were not yet a person capable of appropriating, there could not be anything appropriated. The preceding two verses borrowed phenomena to refute the person; now this borrows the person to refute phenomena. "There are no unappropriated phenomena" arises from following the previous text, "the appropriated is not called appropriation." Since the appropriated is not called appropriation, there are no appropriated five aggregates. Since there are no appropriated five aggregates, and also no person capable of appropriating, with neither appropriator nor appropriated, what could be the Tathāgata? Therefore, "There are no unappropriated phenomena that could be named a Tathāgata." Another meaning: because there is previously no phenomenon of appropriating the aggregates, subsequently there is no Tathāgata. "If within identity and difference" is the fourth part, the general concluding refutation. Since refuting the person is now complete, a general conclusion is required. Being unfound within identity and difference first concludes the second gate above on self and other: having a Buddha-entity of one's own is difference, while existing dependent on another is identity. Being unfound through the five searches turns back to conclude the first gate of the five searches. "How could he exist within appropriation?" concludes the third gate of prior and posterior. As there were three gates of refutation above, now it turns back to conclude the three. Furthermore, this text follows the immediately preceding point to explain and establish the prior and posterior. In discussing prior and posterior, it does not go beyond identity and difference and the five kinds [of searches]; since they are not found when sought through identity, difference, and the five kinds, how can one say that there is a Tathāgata within the five aggregates?