中觀論疏 9.9

9.9

「復次若言過去因」下，第二總破因果。前別破十家五雙，今總破復有五雙：一合不合破、二空不空破、三一異破、四性無性破、五結合不合破。就初四偈為二：前三偈破合、後一偈俱破合不合。就三偈即三，皆明一世因不與三世果合。所以破合者，因能生果名因與果合，果能酬因名果與因合。問破他義云：過去因可得現在果者，過去是滅無，云何能生現在果？此破莊嚴成就義。若過去轉來現在，則不名過去。若轉來則為是常，常云何得報？此破開善義也。又若過去有習因能生現在果者，既其稱有則是現在，不名過去。此通破眾家。問：云何是未來因得未來果？答：他云當得佛理。理在於當，未來淨身當得菩提。又當修因得菩提，又當修因得當果。又言：一切眾生恒有未來當生善理為機、聖人應之為果、並是其事。問：云何為未來因得現在果？答：如未來機感而現在聖應。問：云何未來因為過去果？答：未來有得佛理為因，故未來現在二世斷煩惱求佛。今問：未來已能為斷煩惱作因，亦應未來已有解斷現在惑。又未來當果已能為現在生心，亦同此難。問：云何現在果為過去作因；答：此是續假因。因接前因，令前不斷以作於後，則是現在因過去果。過去寧不因現在而得轉來現在耶？又問：云何為未來因過去果？答：物情言無此義。今明因未來為過去，即未來是因、過去是果。云何現因現果？經言「即生此念時，佛於空中現。」現因當果可解。現因過去果者，如現修因求本有法身也。長行明三世果不與三世因合，對偈中三世因不與三世果合，反覆相成也。「復次若不和合者」，第二一偈合不合雙破。上半牒前不合義明無相生、下半破和合義。無有相生合，是因已與果合，則是已有果，不須相生。不合，是因不與果合，是無果義，無不可生。「若因空無果」下，第二空不空破。三偈為二：初偈就因空不空破、次兩偈就果空不空破。此猶是〈去來品〉決定不決定，及〈作者品〉實有實無破耳。皆領其大綱，故作此破，文易見也。「因果是一者」下，第三一異門破。初偈雙牒雙非、第二偈雙牒雙難。一有四過：一者但是因則無果，無果亦無因；二但是果無因，無因亦無果；三既是一物，不可說因果；四因果既一，則作者作業亦一，陶師與瓶一也。異亦四難：一者因與果異，亦與非因異，則俱成非因；二者因非因俱成因；三因成非因，非因成因；四有因有非因，則有異有不異。「若果定有性」下，第四有性無性破。初偈明果有性，無性因不能生。有性是有體，如本有人體不須陰成，本無人體陰合不成。第二偈結無因果。「若從眾因緣」，第五結緣合不合不能生果。初偈正明和合不生，云何能生果？因無故果無。第二偈結合不合並無生義。果無故因無，故云「何處有合法」。此二偈猶是〈因緣品〉末二偈意同也。長行但釋第五門兩偈，前二易解，略不解之。

From "Furthermore, if it is said that a past cause..." downward is the second part: a general refutation of cause and effect. Previously, ten positions were refuted individually in five pairs; now there are further five pairs in the general refutation: first, the refutation in terms of conjunction and non-conjunction; second, the refutation in terms of empty and non-empty; third, the refutation in terms of identity and difference; fourth, the refutation in terms of possessing nature and lacking nature; fifth, the concluding refutation in terms of conjunction and non-conjunction. Regarding the first four verses, there are two parts: the first three verses refute conjunction, and the final verse refutes both conjunction and non-conjunction. In terms of the three verses, there are three points: they all explain that a cause of one period of time does not conjoin with an effect of the three periods of time. The reason for refuting conjunction is that when a cause can produce an effect, it is called the cause conjoining with the effect; and when an effect can repay a cause, it is called the effect conjoining with the cause. In refuting the opponent's position, we ask: If an effect in the present can be obtained from a past cause, since the past has ceased and is non-existent, how could it produce an effect in the present? This refutes the "fulfillment" (prāpti) theory of Zhuangyan. If the past shifts and comes into the present, then it is not called past. If it shifts and comes, it would be permanent; and if it were permanent, how could it yield retribution? This refutes the position of Kaishan. Furthermore, if a past practice-cause (abhyāsa-hetu) exists and can produce an effect in the present, since it is called existent, it is present and not called past. This universally refutes the various masters. Question: How is it that a future cause obtains a future effect? Answer: Others say that one will attain the principle of Buddhahood. The principle lies in the future: in the future, one's pure body will attain bodhi. Again, in the future one will cultivate the cause and attain bodhi; and again, in the future one will cultivate the cause and attain the future effect. Furthermore, they say: All sentient beings constantly possess the principle of good that will arise in the future as their capacity; the sages' response to this is the effect—all of these are instances of this. Question: How does a future cause obtain a present effect? Answer: It is like a future capacity eliciting an effect, so that the sage responds in the present. Question: How can a future cause be for a past effect? Answer: The future has the principle of attaining Buddhahood as its cause; therefore, throughout the two times of future and present, one cuts off afflictions and seeks Buddhahood. Now we ask: If the future were already capable of acting as a cause for cutting off afflictions, then the future must also already possess the understanding that cuts off present delusions. Moreover, if the future effect were already able to generate resolve in the present, it would also share this difficulty. Question: How does a present effect act as a cause for the past? Answer: This is a cause of continuity and designation (santāna-prajñapti). Because a cause connects to the preceding cause, causing the preceding one not to be broken so as to act for the subsequent one, it is a present cause and a past effect. How could the past not, dependent on the present, manage to shift and come into the present? Question again: How is there a future cause and a past effect? Answer: Ordinary sentiments say there is no such principle. Now we clarify that dependent on the future it becomes the past, meaning the future is the cause and the past is the effect. What is a present cause and present effect? The sūtra says: "The moment one gives rise to this thought, the Buddha appears in empty space." A present cause and a future effect is easily understood. As for a present cause and a past effect: it is like cultivating the cause in the present to seek the originally existent Dharmakāya. The prose clarifies that an effect of the three times does not conjoin with a cause of the three times, which corresponds to the verses stating that a cause of the three times does not conjoin with an effect of the three times—reversing and complementing each other. From "Furthermore, if they do not combine...", the second is one verse refuting both conjunction and non-conjunction together. The first half repeats the earlier meaning of non-conjunction to clarify that there is no mutual production; the second half refutes the meaning of combination. Conjunction without mutual production means that the cause has already conjoined with the effect, which entails that the effect already exists and does not require mutual production. Non-conjunction means that the cause does not conjoin with the effect, which entails the non-existence of an effect; what is non-existent cannot be produced. From "If the cause is empty of the effect..." downward is the second: the refutation in terms of empty and non-empty. The three verses form two parts: the first verse refutes in terms of the cause being empty or non-empty; the next two verses refute in terms of the effect being empty or non-empty. This is just like the refutations in terms of determinate and indeterminate in "Examination of Going and Coming" (Chapter 2), and real existence and real non-existence in "Examination of Agent and Action" (Chapter 8). Grasping their general outline, he makes this refutation; the text is easy to see. From "If cause and effect are one..." downward is the third approach: refutation in terms of identity and difference. The first verse brings up both and negates both; the second verse brings up both and challenges both. Identity entails four errors: first, if it is merely the cause, there is no effect; and without an effect, there is also no cause. Second, if it is merely the effect, there is no cause; and without a cause, there is also no effect. Third, since it is one thing, one cannot speak of cause and effect. Fourth, since cause and effect would be one, the agent and the action would also be one, like the potter and the pot being one. Difference also entails four challenges: first, if the cause is different from the effect and also different from non-causes, then both become non-causes. Second, both cause and non-cause would become causes. Third, a cause would become a non-cause, and a non-cause would become a cause. Fourth, if there is a cause and a non-cause, then there is difference and non-difference. From "If the effect determinately has a nature..." downward is the fourth: refutation in terms of possessing nature and lacking nature. The first verse clarifies that whether an effect has a nature or lacks a nature, a cause cannot produce it. Possessing a nature means having an entity: if a person's entity originally exists, it does not require the aggregates to form it; if a person's entity originally does not exist, the combination of the aggregates will not form it. The second verse concludes that there is neither cause nor effect. From "If from various causes and conditions...", the fifth concludes that whether the conditions conjoin or do not conjoin, they cannot produce an effect. The first verse directly clarifies that combination does not produce: how could it produce an effect? Because the cause is non-existent, the effect is non-existent. The second verse concludes that whether conjoining or not conjoining, in neither case is there the meaning of production. Because the effect is non-existent, the cause is non-existent; hence it says: "Where is there an entity of conjunction?" These two verses share the same meaning as the final two verses of "Examination of Conditions" (Chapter 1). The prose only explains the two verses of this fifth approach; the former two are easy to understand, so they are omitted and not explained.