中觀論疏 9.9

9.9

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.