中觀論疏 6.5

6.5

The prose first explains the root verse. From "not definite" onward, it shows the treatise master's intention not to refute that person and phenomena both do not exist. Even when both exist, existence still lacks action; when both do not exist, how could non-existence have action? Therefore, it is not necessary to refute non-existence. From "Furthermore, if there is definitely an agent" onward is the second part, reaffirming that person and phenomena both existing falls into the fault of causelessness, which is the four pairs of the initial section. If there is a person that can be a person, there is a phenomenon that can be a phenomenon. If there is a person that can be a person, the person is not dependent on phenomena; if there is a phenomenon that can be a phenomenon, the phenomenon is not dependent on the person. Therefore, the person is an independent person, and the phenomenon is an independent phenomenon; hence it is called "causeless." Yet one must observe the meaning of the text with a refined mind: if there is a hair's breadth of person-substance, then it does not depend on phenomena; phenomena are also like this. Likewise with long and short, birth-and-death, and nirvāṇa: if there is a hair's breadth without mutual dependence, lacking mutual dependence then refutes causes and conditions and refutes the middle way. If there is not a hair's breadth of person and phenomena, there is also nothing that can be mutually dependent. It can be said that the correct contemplation is subtle and wondrous, and false delusion easily collapses. From "The question says" onward generates the third part, successively revealing the fault of causelessness. The three verses in the reply have two parts: first, distinct clarification of the fault of causelessness; next, half a line summarising it. In the distinct clarification there are ten faults, namely cause and effect, person and phenomena, sin and merit, retribution of sin and merit, and mundane and supramundane. "Then there is neither cause nor effect": if a person is not dependent on phenomena, there is no cause of phenomena; if there is no cause of phenomena, there is no person, and the effect and phenomena are also like this. Question: Earlier it already clarified that there is no cause and effect, why does it again say there is no sin and merit, and no retribution of sin and merit? Answer: Earlier it clarified the absence of cause and effect among external phenomena such as a vase; later it clarified the absence of cause and effect of internal phenomena. Furthermore, according to the masters of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, the latter only clarifies the absence of cause and effect of retribution causes, while the former generally clarifies the cause and effect of the remaining five causes. The Tattvasiddhi is also like this: the latter clarifies the cause and effect of retribution causes, while the former clarifies the cause and effect of habitual causes and relying causes. Question: The text of the treatise in some versions says "Heavenly Nirvāṇa" and in some says "Great Nirvāṇa," which one is correct? Answer: "Great" is correct, because earlier the retribution of sin and merit had already finished explaining heavenly retribution. The prose has two parts: first, it explains that person and phenomena both existing falls into causelessness, and causelessness has ten faults. From "The question says" onward, it shows that the treatise master only clarifies the fault of person and phenomena both existing, without displaying the error of both not existing. Even both existing still has faults, how much more so both not existing! Therefore, it is not necessary to reveal the error of non-existence. Furthermore, Piṅgala wished to fully display the errors of both existing and both not existing, initiating the following refutation of half-existing and half-not-existing.