三論玄義 1.11

1.11

顯正第二。自上已來破外道、毘曇、成實大乘，從此已後序前四宗斥於三論，故通其邪難、顯明正理。上既遍斥四宗，於時群難競起咸疑：龍樹非是正師，所造之論應為邪法。是故此章次明顯正義。正義雖多，略標二種：一明人正、次顯法正。言人正者，《楞伽經》大慧菩薩問：「世尊滅度後，是法何人持？」佛說偈答：「於我滅度後，南天大國中，有大德比丘，名龍樹菩薩。住初歡喜地，為人說大乘，能破有無見，往生安養國。」次《摩耶經》云「摩耶問阿難曰：『佛滅度後，何人持法？』阿難答曰：『如來正法五百年。第一百年優婆掘多說法教化住持正法，次二百年尸羅難陀比丘於閻浮提度十億人，次三百年青蓮華眼比丘說法教化度半億人，次四百年間牛口比丘演說法要度一萬人，第五百年寶天比丘度二萬人。八萬眾生發菩提心，正法便滅。六百年間，九十六種邪見競興，破滅佛法，馬鳴比丘摧此外道。七百年間有一比丘名曰龍樹，善巧說法，燃正法炬、滅邪見幢。』」尋大小乘經，親記龍樹破邪顯正。今內外並呵、大小俱斥，何所疑哉？又馬鳴、龍樹佛有誠記尚復生疑，法勝、訶梨無經所印，云何輒受？問：法勝乃未見誠文，訶梨亦有明據。《阿含經》云「實名四諦，是故比丘當成四諦。」佛垂此勅，懸鑒有在。逮茲像末，允屬訶梨為成是法，故造斯論。紘宗若斯，豈虛搆哉？答：蓋是通指像末，豈別主訶梨？故非所據也。顯法正第二。問：龍樹著述部類甚多，三論偏空，似非究竟。答：僧叡昔在什公門下為翻譯之宗，其論序云「夫百梁之搆興則鄙茅茨之仄陋，覩斯論之紘博則知偏悟之鄙倍，故偏主小乘正歸此論。」又如前云「天竺十六大國方八千里，有向化之緣並為委誠，龍樹為無相佛，敢預學者之徒，無不翫味斯論以為喉衿。」若是偏空，豈為諸國所重？又羅什本執小乘，因此論而迴轍正觀，厥後眾師藉斯文而曉迷。以此詳之，蓋是究竟無餘之說。問：若內外並呵、大小俱斥，此論宗旨何所依據耶？答：若心存內外、情寄大小，則墮在偏邪、失於正理。既失正理則正觀不生，若正觀不生則斷常不滅，若斷常不滅則苦輪常運。以內外並冥、大小俱寂始名正理，悟斯正理則發生正觀，正觀若生則戲論斯滅，戲論斯滅則苦輪便壞。三論大宗其意若此。蓋乃總眾教之旨歸、統群聖之靈府，味道之流豈不栖憑斯趣耶？問：若內外並除、大小俱斥，乃為斷見，何名正宗？答：既內外並冥則斷常斯寂，二邊既捨，寧非正宗耶？難曰：夫有斷有常故名之為有，無斷無常目之為無。既其是無，何由離斷？答：既斷常斯寂，則有無等皆離，不應更復謂染於無。難曰：雖有此通，終不免難。夫有有有無名之為有，無有無無始是大無。既其墮無，何由離斷？答：本對有病，是故說無；有病若消，空藥亦廢。則知聖道未曾有無，何所滯耶？難曰：是有是無名為兩是，非有非無名為兩非。既墮是非，還同儒墨。答：本非二是，故有雙非。二是既亡，雙非亦息，故知非是亦復非非。難曰：非是非非還墮二非，何由免非？答：二是生乎夢虎，兩非還見空華，則知本無所是、今亦無非。難曰：若無是無非，亦不邪不正，何故建篇章稱破邪顯正？答：夫有非有是此則為邪，無是無非乃名為正，所以命篇辨破邪顯正。難曰：既有邪可破、有正可顯，則心有取捨，何謂無依？答：為息於邪，強名為正。在邪既息，則正亦不留，故心無所著。難曰：若邪正並冥，豈非空見？答：《正觀論》云「大聖說空法，為離諸見故。若復見有空，諸佛所不化。」如水能滅火，今水還出火，當用何滅？斷常為火，空能滅之；若復著空，即無藥可滅也。難曰：既著空病，何故不服有藥而言息化？答：若以有化，還復滯有；乃至亡言，便復著斷。如此之流，何由可化？問：心有所著，有何過耶？答：若有所著便有所縛，不得解脫生老病死憂悲苦惱。故《法華》云「我以無數方便引道眾生令離諸著」，《淨名》云「不著世間如蓮華，常善入於空寂行，達諸法相無罣礙，稽首如空無所依。」三世諸佛為六道眾生心有所著，故出世說經；四依開士為大小學人心有所依，故出世造論。故有依有得為生死之本，無住無著為經論大宗。難曰：若內外並冥，佛經何故說大小兩教？答：《法華》云「是法不可示，言辭相寂滅」，如來於無名相中強名相說，故有大小教門，欲令眾生因此名相悟無名相。而封教之徒聞說大小更生染著，是故造論破斯執情，還令了悟本來寂滅。故四依出世為如佛也。問：此論名為正觀，正有幾種？答：天無兩日、土無二王，教有多門，理唯一正，是故上來破斥四宗。《華嚴》云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法。一切無畏人，一道出生死。」但欲出處眾生，於無名相法強名相說，令稟學之徒因而得悟，故開二正：一者體正、二者用正。非真非俗名為體正，真之與俗目為用正。所以然者，諸法實相言亡慮絕、未曾真俗故名之為體，絕諸偏邪目之為正，故言體正。所言用正者，體絕名言，物無由悟，雖非有無強說真俗故名為用，此真之與俗亦不偏邪目之為正，故名用正也。問：既云真俗，則是二邊，何名為正？答：如因緣假有目之為俗，然假有不可言其定有、假有不可言其定無。此之假有遠離二邊，故名為正。俗有既爾，真無亦爾。假無不可定無、假無不可定有，遠離二邊，故目之為正。問：何故辨體用二正耶？答：像末鈍根多墮偏邪，四依出世匡正佛法，故明用正。既識正教便悟正理，則有體正。但正有三種：一對偏病目之為正，名對偏正；二盡淨於偏名之為正，謂盡偏正也；三偏病既去正亦不留，非偏非正，不知何以美之，強嘆為正，謂絕待正也。在正既然，觀論亦爾。因於體正發生正觀，名為體觀；藉二諦用生二諦觀，名為用觀。故觀具二也。觀辨於心，為眾生故如實說體，名為體論；若說於用，名之為用論。故論具二也。正既有對偏盡偏絕待、觀論亦然、類前可知。

Second: revealing the correct. Above, [we have] refuted tīrthikas, Abhidharma, Tattvasiddhi, and [attachment to the] Mahāyāna; from here on, we explain how the proponents of the former four tenets criticise the Three Treatises, and therefore resolve their erroneous objections and elucidate the correct principle. Since the four tenets were all refuted above, numerous objections arose simultaneously, all suspecting that Nāgārjuna was not a correct master and that the śāstras he composed must be erroneous teachings. Therefore, this section next clarifies the meaning of the correct. Although the meanings of the correct are many, two kinds are briefly indicated: first, clarifying the correctness of the person; next, revealing the correctness of the Dharma. As for the correctness of the person, in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra the Bodhisattva Mahāmati asked: "After the World-Honoured One passes into nirvāṇa, who will uphold this Dharma?" The Buddha answered in verse: "After my passing into nirvāṇa, / In a great kingdom of South India, / There will be a monk of great virtue, / Named the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna. / Abiding on the first ground, Pramuditā, / He will expound the Mahāyāna for people, / Able to destroy the views of existence and non-existence, / And be reborn in the Land of Peace and Sustenance." Next, the Mahāmāyāsūtra states: "Māyā asked Ānanda: 'After the Buddha's passing into nirvāṇa, who will uphold the Dharma?' Ānanda replied: 'The Tathāgata's true Dharma will last five hundred years. In the first hundred years, Upagupta will preach the Dharma, convert [beings], and uphold the true Dharma. In the next two hundred years, the monk Śīlananda will deliver one billion people in Jambudvīpa. In the next three hundred years, the monk Nīlotpalākṣa will preach the Dharma, convert, and deliver fifty million people. During the next four hundred years, the monk *Gomukha will expound the essentials of the Dharma and deliver ten thousand people. In the fifth hundred years, the monk Ratnadeva will deliver twenty thousand people. Eighty thousand sentient beings will produce the aspiration for bodhi, and the true Dharma will then disappear. During the six hundred years, ninety-six kinds of erroneous views will contend and arise to destroy the Buddha's Dharma; the monk Aśvaghoṣa will shatter these tīrthikas. During the seven hundred years, there will be a monk named Nāgārjuna, skilful in preaching the Dharma, who will ignite the torch of the true Dharma and extinguish the banner of erroneous views.'" When we examine the sūtras of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, they explicitly prophesy that Nāgārjuna would refute the erroneous and reveal the correct. Now, when both inner and outer are rebuked, and both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna are refuted, what room is there for doubt? Furthermore, when people still harbor doubt regarding Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, who have authentic prophecies from the Buddha, how could one rashly accept Dharmaśreṣṭhin and Harivarman, who have no seal of confirmation from any sūtra? Question: Though there are indeed no authentic texts seen for Dharmaśreṣṭhin, Harivarman also has clear grounds. The Āgamas say: "The real (tattva) refers to the four [noble] truths; therefore, monks should accomplish (siddhi) the four truths." When the Buddha issued this injunction, his foresight had its mark. Reaching the semblance-Dharma and the final age, it properly belonged to Harivarman to compose this śāstra to accomplish this Dharma. When its overarching principle is such, how could it be a baseless fabrication? Answer: That is merely a general reference to the semblance-Dharma and final age; how could it specifically point to Harivarman? Therefore, it is not a valid ground. Second: revealing the correctness of the Dharma. Question: Nāgārjuna's writings are exceedingly numerous in category; the Three Treatises are biased toward emptiness and seem not to be definitive. Answer: Formerly, Sengrui was the leader of the translation work under Master [Kumāra]jīva. His preface to the treatise says: "When a structure of a hundred beams rises, one disdains the cramped meanness of a thatched hut; beholding the vast breadth of this śāstra, one realizes the baseness of partial understanding. Hence, those who had exclusively adhered to the Hīnayāna properly took refuge in this śāstra." Moreover, as stated previously: "In the sixteen great kingdoms of India, extending eight thousand li across, all who had the affinity to turn toward conversion surrendered their sincere devotion; they regarded Nāgārjuna as an appearance-free Buddha, and among those who presumed to be numbered among scholars, there was none who did not savour this śāstra and regard it as vital as their throat and collar." If it were biased toward emptiness, how could it have been so esteemed by all countries? Furthermore, Kumārajīva originally adhered to the Hīnayāna, but due to this śāstra he turned his course toward the correct vipaśyanā; thereafter, numerous masters relied on these texts to awaken from their delusions. Judging from this, it is surely a definitive and unsurpassable teaching. Question: If both inner and outer are rebuked, and both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna are refuted, on what grounds does the central tenet of this śāstra rely? Answer: If the mind harbors inner and outer, or the emotions invest in the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, one falls into bias and error, losing the correct principle. When one loses the correct principle, the correct vipaśyanā does not arise; if the correct vipaśyanā does not arise, [the views of] annihilation and eternity are not eliminated; if annihilation and eternity are not eliminated, the wheel of suffering continually turns. It is only when inner and outer are both obscured and the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna are both stilled that it is first called the correct principle. Awakening to this correct principle gives rise to the correct vipaśyanā; if the correct vipaśyanā arises, prapañca is extinguished; when prapañca is extinguished, the wheel of suffering is destroyed. Such is the import of the great tenet of the Three Treatises. It brings together the ultimate aim of all teachings and unifies the spiritual domain of the sages; how could those who relish the Way fail to lodge their reliance in this purport? Question: If inner and outer are both eliminated, and the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna are both refuted, this is ucchedadṛṣṭi; how can it be called the correct tenet? Answer: Since inner and outer are both obscured, annihilation and eternity are thereby stilled; when the two extremes are abandoned, how can it not be the correct tenet? Objection: Having annihilation and having eternity is called existence; the absence of annihilation and the absence of eternity is termed non-existence. Since it is non-existence, how does it escape annihilation? Answer: Since annihilation and eternity are stilled, both existence and non-existence are completely transcended; one should not again claim that it is tainted by non-existence. Objection: Although there is this resolution, you still cannot escape the difficulty. Having existence and having non-existence is called existence; the absence of existence and the absence of non-existence is the true great non-existence. Since it falls into non-existence, how does it escape annihilation? Answer: Non-existence was originally spoken as a remedy against the illness of existence; if the illness of existence dissolves, the medicine of emptiness is also discarded. Thus we know that the sacred Way has never been existence or non-existence; what is there to be trapped in? Objection: Being existence and being non-existence is called affirming both; neither existence nor non-existence is called negating both. Since you fall into affirmation and negation, you are just like the Confucians and Mohists. Answer: Originally it was not the two affirmations, and therefore there were the dual negations. When the two affirmations are gone, the dual negations also cease; thus we know it is neither affirmation nor negation. Objection: Neither affirmation nor negation still falls into two negations; how do you avoid negation? Answer: The two affirmations arise like a dreamed tiger; the dual negations are like seeing sky-flowers. Thus we know that originally there was nothing affirmed, and now there is also nothing negated. Objection: If there is neither affirmation nor negation, nor erroneous nor correct, why establish chapters entitled 'Refuting the Erroneous and Revealing the Correct'? Answer: Having negation and having affirmation: this is erroneous. Having neither affirmation nor negation: this is termed correct. That is why chapters are established to explain the refutation of the erroneous and the revealing of the correct. Objection: If there is an erroneous to be refuted and a correct to be revealed, then the mind has grasping and rejecting; how can you claim there is no reliance? Answer: To put an end to the erroneous, we conventionally designate it as the correct. When the erroneous is stilled, the correct does not remain either; therefore, the mind has no attachment. Objection: If both the erroneous and the correct are obscured, is that not the view of emptiness? Answer: The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The Great Sage taught the Dharma of emptiness / In order to abandon all views; / If one further sees emptiness as existent, / The Buddhas cannot convert them." It is like water being able to extinguish fire, but if fire now comes forth from the water, what can be used to extinguish it? Annihilation and eternity are the fire, and emptiness can extinguish them; if one further clings to emptiness, then there is no medicine to extinguish it. Objection: Since the illness of clinging to emptiness is present, why not take the medicine of existence, rather than saying conversion ceases? Answer: If one converts through existence, one becomes trapped in existence again; even if one reaches the elimination of speech, one falls into clinging to annihilation. How could people of this sort be converted? Question: If the mind has attachment, what fault is there? Answer: If one has attachment, one is bound, unable to attain liberation from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, suffering, and distress. Therefore, the Lotus Sūtra says: "With countless skilful means I lead sentient beings to abandon all attachments." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Untainted by the world like a lotus flower, / Ever well entered into the practice of emptiness and tranquility, / Penetrating the dharmatā of all phenomena without obstruction, / I bow to the one who, like space, has no reliance." The Buddhas of the three periods appeared in the world to preach the sūtras because sentient beings of the six paths have attachment in their minds; the great beings of the four reliances appeared in the world to compose treatises because scholars of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna had reliance in their minds. Therefore, having reliance and having attainment are the root of saṃsāra; having no abiding and having no attachment are the overarching tenets of the sūtras and śāstras. Objection: If inner and outer are both obscured, why do the Buddha's sūtras teach the two vehicles of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna? Answer: The Lotus Sūtra says: "This Dharma cannot be shown; / The characteristics of words and speech are extinguished." The Tathāgata conventionally spoke in names and characteristics where there are no names and characteristics, and therefore there are the teachings of the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, wishing to enable sentient beings to awaken to the absence of names and characteristics through these names and characteristics. But those who cling to the teachings, hearing the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna taught, produce further attachment; therefore, treatises were composed to shatter these clinging sentiments and restore them to the awakening that all is fundamentally extinguished. Hence, the appearance of the four reliances in the world is just like the Buddha's. Question: This śāstra is called 'Correct Vipaśyanā' (Madhyamakaśāstra); how many kinds of 'correct' are there? Answer: Heaven does not have two suns, and the realm does not have two kings; though teachings have many approaches, the principle is solely one correct; therefore, the four tenets have been refuted above. The Avataṃsakasūtra says: "Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus: / The Dharma King has only one Dharma. / All fearless persons / Exit saṃsāra by a single path." But wishing to deliver sentient beings, one conventionally speaks in names and characteristics of the Dharma that lacks names and characteristics, so that students may thereby attain awakening; therefore, two kinds of correct are opened: first, the correct of essence; second, the correct of function. Being neither paramārthasatya nor saṃvṛtisatya is called the correct of essence; paramārthasatya and saṃvṛtisatya are designated the correct of function. Why is this? The dharmatā of all phenomena is beyond words and thought, never having been paramārtha or saṃvṛti; hence it is called essence. Being cut off from all bias and error, it is termed correct; hence it is called the correct of essence. As for the correct of function: essence is cut off from names and words, and sentient beings have no way to awaken to it; though it is neither existence nor non-existence, we conventionally speak of paramārtha and saṃvṛti; hence it is called function. This paramārtha and saṃvṛti are also not biased or erroneous, and are termed correct; hence it is called the correct of function. Question: Since they are called paramārtha and saṃvṛti, they are the two extremes; how can they be called correct? Answer: For instance, provisional existence through causes and conditions is designated saṃvṛti, yet provisional existence cannot be said to be definitely existent, nor can provisional existence be said to be definitely non-existent. This provisional existence is far removed from the two extremes; therefore it is called correct. Saṃvṛti existence being so, paramārtha non-existence is also so. Provisional non-existence cannot be definitely non-existent, nor can provisional non-existence be definitely existent; being far removed from the two extremes, it is therefore termed correct. Question: Why explain the two kinds of correct, essence and function? Answer: In the semblance-Dharma and final age, those of dull faculties mostly fall into bias and error; the four reliances appear in the world to rectify the Buddha's Dharma, and therefore clarify the correct of function. When one recognizes the correct teaching, one awakens to the correct principle, and then there is the correct of essence. However, 'correct' has three kinds: first, designated as correct in opposition to the illness of bias, called the correct in opposition to bias; second, exhausting and purifying bias, designated as correct, called the correct of exhausting bias; third, when the illness of bias has gone, the correct does not remain either—being neither biased nor correct, having no words by which to praise it, we conventionally laud it as correct, called the absolute correct. As it is with 'correct', so it is with 'vipaśyanā' and 'śāstra'. Arising from the correct of essence, the correct vipaśyanā is generated, which is called the vipaśyanā of essence; relying on the function of the two truths, the vipaśyanā of the two truths is generated, which is called the vipaśyanā of function. Therefore, vipaśyanā possesses both. Vipaśyanā is differentiated in the mind; expounding the essence in accordance with reality for the sake of sentient beings is called the śāstra of essence; if expounding the function, it is called the śāstra of function. Therefore, the śāstra possesses both. Just as 'correct' has the opposition to bias, the exhaustion of bias, and the absolute, so it is with 'vipaśyanā' and 'śāstra', which can be understood by analogy to what precedes.