中觀論疏 7.43

7.43

"Furthermore, there is also no liberation" begins the second section, which subsequently refutes liberation. It is also divided into two: the first verse refutes conditioned liberation, and the second verse refutes unconditioned liberation. The initial refutation of conditioned liberation is indeed a refutation of the meaning of the truth of the path; the second refutation of unconditioned liberation is a refutation of the meaning of the truth of cessation. They are also refutations of the meanings of conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation, for any liberation does not go beyond these two. Question: What is the difference between nirvāṇa and liberation? Answer: Nirvāṇa necessarily entails liberation, but liberation does not necessarily entail nirvāṇa, as in the cases of conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation; hence liberation applies to both, whereas nirvāṇa is only unconditioned. The tenets of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are alike in this regard. In refuting conditioned liberation, liberation is refuted in confrontation with bondage by setting up the approach of the three times: First, what is already bound has no liberation. This discusses the meaning of severing defilements. If it is already bound, the defilements have already passed away; what then is severed? Furthermore, when the bondage has already passed away, there is no bondage; with no bondage, how could there be liberation? Again, precisely when one is in the view of a self, there is no understanding of non-self. Second, what is not yet bound has no bondage; since one is waiting [for it], it also has no liberation. This clarifies that when the defilements are in the future, how could liberation sever them? Third, liberation and defilement occurring at the same time cannot coexist. For instance, if one posits that the view of a self is defilement and the mind of non-self is liberation, then precisely when the view of a self arises, there is no liberation of non-self; when there is the liberation of non-self, there is no defilement of the view of a self. How could they be simultaneous? Furthermore, there are three propositions: 1. When there is bondage, there is no liberation; 2. When there is no bondage, there is also no liberation; 3. When bondage and liberation are simultaneous, there is likewise no liberation. The doctrines of others contain all three of these: when defilement first arises, it is precisely bound and without liberation; next, on the unimpeded path, liberation and defilement are simultaneous; next, on the path of liberation, there is liberation and no bondage. These three propositions fall into the refutation of the present three approaches. "It is asked" below is the second part, refuting unconditioned liberation. First comes the question, and next the answer. Both the Sāṃkhya (or Sarvāstivāda) and Mahāyāna proponents raise this question alike. Statements such as originally existent nirvāṇa, newly attained nirvāṇa, purity by nature, and purity by expedient means are all the intention behind the opponent's question here. Question: How is it known that this text refutes unconditioned liberation? Answer: In the thesis it states that there is a person who cultivates the path and presently enters nirvāṇa. Since it is termed "entering," one should know that it is nirvāṇa without remainder. "The answer is" below directly refutes unconditioned nirvāṇa. If explained in terms of the two prajñās: above was the refutation of conditioned prajñā, and here is the refutation of unconditioned prajñā. There are two masters who explain conditioned prajñā: the southern masters say that the realizations of the ten bhūmis are all conditioned, and hence are called conditioned prajñā; the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say that prajñā is the fundamental [wisdom] and that wisdom is unconditioned. This contradicts the sūtras. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "This permanent Dharma-designation" applies only to the Tathāgata; how could it already be permanent in the stage of the cause? The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Prajñā transforms into sarvajñā"; how could the permanent transform? Moreover, if fundamental wisdom were permanent, why would the realizations of the ten bhūmis have clarity and obscurity? There are two schools that explain unconditioned prajñā: one adopts the realm of true reality; the other adopts the prajñā among the three virtues. The first half of the verse takes up the opponent's doctrine, and the second half directly refutes it. "Non-appropriation" has two senses: first, taking the five aggregates to be appropriation; second, taking the mind of grasping attachment to be appropriation. When entering [nirvāṇa] without remainder, these two appropriations are absent, and therefore it is said that one does not appropriate dharmas. This person merely does not appropriate what is appropriated, yet appropriates non-appropriation; thus non-appropriation turns back into appropriation, which is called being bound by appropriation. Furthermore, this person says: the mind has nothing it appropriates, yet ultimately there is something attained. If there is something attained, then ultimately there is appropriation; therefore one is bound by appropriation. In this manner, in leaving the ordinary and attaining the noble, the noble turns back into the ordinary. The same is true of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the real and the false.