中觀論疏 9.8

9.8

「問曰是因遍有果」下，第五遍不遍一雙。凡計因果各自不同：見蓮中有子便謂前有、見待緣始生便謂前無；見因滅果生即謂因在果前、仍為果作因便謂因在果後；見會指成捲便謂因果一時、見轉乳成酪便謂因變作果；見鏡中有像便謂因見於果、見種滅生牙便言因不見果；見麻中出油便言遍有，見母生子便言不遍，子但在腹中不在四支。故今欲備窮眾計，故具破之。此偈明遍則舉體全是，更生何物耶？如五指遍是捲，更生何物捲？若不遍者，汝能得捲在一邊、指在一邊不？又捲不遍在指者，為在指外、為在指內、為在中間？並不成也。見不見猶是遍不遍，遍亦是因中先有、不遍是先無也。以舉體即是故云遍，亦舉體則是故云見也。長行，見是因中已有，故不須生；不見是因中無，不能生。可細尋文云見也。成論師云：眾生有遍生六道諸趣之理。數人云：未來是有，遍有五道三乘之性，至苦忍時，三乘中二性及三惡道皆非數緣滅。今問：《涅槃》破先尼云「若我遍諸趣者，何故為身更復造業？」數人未來既遍有五趣身者，亦同此難也。彼救云：未來但有性有，異外道我。今問：此異空即是已有，若未異空以何為性？又問：何因有此未來性耶？故知本自有之則是常見。

From "The question says: this cause pervasively possesses the fruit" downwards is the fifth pair: pervasive [versus] non-pervasive. In general, views of cause and effect differ among people: seeing seeds within the lotus, they claim prior existence; seeing that it arises only upon waiting for conditions, they claim prior non-existence; seeing the cause perish and the fruit arise, they claim the cause precedes the fruit; seeing that it still acts as a cause for the fruit, they claim the cause follows the fruit; seeing fingers brought together to form a fist, they claim cause and effect are simultaneous; seeing milk turned into curds, they claim the cause transforms into the fruit; seeing an image in a mirror, they claim the cause sees the fruit; seeing a seed perish and a sprout arise, they say the cause does not see the fruit; seeing oil emerge from sesame seeds, they say it is pervasively existent; seeing a mother give birth to a child, they say it is non-pervasive, as the child is only in the belly and not in the four limbs. Therefore, now desiring to exhaustively examine all these views, they are fully refuted. This verse clarifies that if it is pervasive, then its entire substance is completely it; what further entity could arise? Just as the five fingers are pervasively the fist, what further fist could arise? If it is not pervasive, can you have the fist on one side and the fingers on the other side? Furthermore, if the fist does not pervasively reside in the fingers, does it reside outside the fingers, inside the fingers, or in between? None of these succeeds. Seeing and not seeing are just pervasive and non-pervasive; pervasive is also prior existence within the cause, and non-pervasive is prior non-existence. Because its entire substance is just it, it is called pervasive; also, because its entire substance is just it, it is called seeing. In the prose: seeing means already existing within the cause, hence needing no arising; not seeing means non-existence within the cause, unable to arise. One can scrutinize the text closely regarding "seeing". The Tattvasiddhi masters say: sentient beings possess the principle of pervasively arising in all the destinies of the six realms. The Sarvāstivādins say: the future exists, and pervasively possesses the natures of the five destinies and the three vehicles; upon reaching the patience of suffering, two of the natures among the three vehicles as well as the three evil destinies all undergo apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Now we ask: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra refutes Śreṇika, saying, "If the self pervades all destinies, why does it create karma anew for the sake of the body?" Since the Sarvāstivādins hold that future bodies of the five destinies are pervasively possessed, they are subject to this same objection. They defend: the future only has existence of nature, which differs from the non-Buddhist self. Now we ask: if this is distinct from emptiness, it is already existent; if it is not yet distinct from emptiness, what is taken as the nature? Furthermore, we ask: by what cause does this future nature exist? Therefore we know that its inherent, original existence is none other than the view of permanence.