中觀論疏 9.8

9.8

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.