三論玄義 1.23

1.23

次別釋中論名題門。此論立名，有廣有略。所言略者，但稱《中論》。故叡法師序云「中論有五百偈，龍樹菩薩之所造。」而後但釋中論兩字，故名為略。問：何故但稱中論，不題觀耶？答：中是所論之理實，論是能論之教門。若明理教，故義無不周也。所言廣者，加之以觀。故影法師《中論．序》云「寂此諸邊名之為中，問答拆徵稱之為論。」又云「觀者，直以觀辨於心、論宣於口耳。」問：何故具題三字耶？答：因中發觀，由觀宣論，要備三法義乃圓足也。次第門。問：此三字有何次第耶？答：有二種次第，一者能化次第、二者所化次第。能化次第者，中謂三世十方諸佛菩薩所行之道，故前明中。由此道故，發生諸佛菩薩正觀，故次明觀。由內有正觀故，佛宣之於口，名之為經；四依菩薩宣之於口，目之為論也。約所化悟入次第者，稟教之徒因論識中，因中發觀。若望於佛，因教識理，因理發觀也。次制立門。所以但明三字不多不少者，略有三義：一者諸佛菩薩凡有二德，一者自行、二者化他。中之與觀，謂自行也；論之一字即是化他。自行化他義無不攝，故但標三字。二者化於眾生要必具三：一者有所悟之理、二者因理發觀、三者由觀宣論，故但明三也。三者以中對觀，是境智之名。以觀對論，為行說之稱。因中發觀，故以中為境、以觀為智；如說而行為觀，如行而說為論。以義唯此四，故名字但有三名也。次論通別門。通而為言，三字皆中、皆觀、皆論。所言皆中者，理實不偏，故理名為中。因中理發觀，觀非偏觀，觀亦名中。因中觀宣論，論非偏論，論亦名中。三字皆觀者，中是義相觀，觀是心行觀，論是名字觀。亦如三種般若，中是實相般若，觀是觀照般若，論是文字般若。三種皆論者，論是能論故名為論，餘二所論亦名為論也。就別而言，理實不偏，與其中名。智是達照，當其觀稱。論是言教，故目之為論。次明互發盡門。就中有中發觀、觀發中，緣盡觀、觀盡緣。所言中發觀者，如《涅槃經》云「十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智，譬如胡瓜能發熱病也。」觀發中者，眾生本謂因緣是生是滅，不知是中；以正觀檢生滅不得，方悟因緣是中，此則因觀發中。緣盡於觀、觀盡於緣者，凡夫二乘及有所得偏邪之緣，盡菩薩正觀之內，故名緣盡於觀。觀盡於緣者，邪緣既盡，正觀亦息，故名觀盡於緣。緣盡於觀故非緣、觀盡於緣故非觀，非緣非觀，不知何以美之，強名正觀也。問：既得緣盡觀、觀盡緣，亦得中盡觀、親盡中不？答：亦得爾也。中是智境，觀是境智。境不自境，因智故境；智不自智，由境故智。由智故境，境不自境；由境故智，智不自智。不自智則非智，不自境則非境，故是境盡於智、智盡於境。問：亦得緣發於觀、觀發於緣不？答：由邪緣故得顯正觀，即是緣發於觀。由正觀故顯緣是邪，謂觀發於緣耳。次明別釋三字門。總論釋義，凡有四種：一依名釋義、二就理教釋義、三就互相釋義、四無方釋義也。依名釋義者，中以實為義、中以正為義。中以實為義者，如《涅槃》釋本有今無偈云「我昔本無中道實義，是故現在有無量煩惱。」叡師《中論．序》云「以中為名者，照其實也。」照謂顯也，立於中名，為欲顯諸法實，故云照其實也。所言正者，《華嚴》云「正法性遠離，一切言語道，一切趣非趣，悉皆寂滅相。」此之正法即是中道。離偏曰中，對邪名正。肇公《物不遷論》云「正觀論曰：觀方知彼去，去者不至方。」故知中以正為義也。理教釋義者，中以不中為義。所以然者，諸法實相非中非不中，無名相法，為眾生故強名相說，欲令因此名以悟無名，是故說中為顯不中。問：中以不中為義，出何文耶？答：《華嚴》云「一切有無法，了達非有無。」若爾，一切中偏法，了達非中偏，即其事也。所言互相釋義者，中以偏為義，偏以中為義。所以然者，中偏是因緣之義，故說偏令悟中，說中令識偏。如經云「說世諦令識第一義諦，說第一義諦令識世諦」也。四無方釋義者，中以色為義，中以心為義。是故《華嚴經》云「一中解無量，無量中解一。」故一法得以一切法為義，一切法得以一法為義。問：中有幾種？答：既稱為中，則非多非一，隨義對緣得說多一。所言一中者，一道清淨更無二道。一道者，即一中道也。所言二中者，則約二諦辨中，謂世諦中、真諦中。以世諦不偏故名為中，真諦不偏名為真諦中。所言三中者，二諦中及非真非俗中。所言四中者，謂對偏中、盡偏中、絕待中、成假中也。對偏中者，對大小學人斷常偏病，是故說對偏中也。盡偏中者，大小學人有於斷常偏病則不成中，偏病若盡則名為中。是故經云「眾生起見凡有二種：一斷、二常。」如是二見不名中道，無常無斷乃名中道，故名盡偏中也。絕待中者，本對偏病是故有中，偏病既除中亦不立。非中非偏，為出處眾生強名為中，謂絕待中。故此論云「若無有始終，中當云何有？」經亦云「遠離二邊，不著中道。」即其事也。成假中者，有無為假，非有非無為中。由非有非無故說有無，如此之中為成於假，謂成假中也。所以然者，良由正道未曾有無，為化眾生假說有無，故以非有無為中，有無為假也。就成假中有單複、疎密、橫竪等義，具如中假義說。如說有為單假，非有為單中，無義亦爾。有無為複假，非有非無為複中。有無為疎假，非有非無為疎中。不有有為密假，有不有為密中。疎即是橫，密即是竪也。次釋中不同得有四種：一外道明中、二毘曇明中、三成實明中、四大乘人明中也。外道說中者，僧佉人言：泥團非瓶非非瓶，即是中義也。衛世師云：聲不名大、不名小。勒沙婆云：光非闇非明。此之三師並以兩非為中，而未知所以為中耳。毘曇人釋中者，有事有理。事中者，無漏大王不在邊地，謂不在欲界及非想也。理中者，謂苦集之理不斷不常也。成實人明中道者，論文直言離有離無名聖中道。而論師云：中道有三，一世諦中道、二真諦中道、三非真非俗中道。四大乘人明中者，如《攝大乘》論師明，非安立諦，不著生死不住涅槃，名之為中也。義本者，以無住為體中，此是合門。於體中開為兩用，謂真、俗，此是用中。即是開門也。又中假師云：非有非無為中，而有而無為假也。

Next is the section individually explaining the title of the Madhyamakaśāstra. The formulation of the title of this treatise has both an abbreviated and an expansive [form]. As for what is called the abbreviated form, it is simply called "Madhyamakaśāstra." Thus, Dharma Master Sengrui's preface says: "The Madhyamakaśāstra has five hundred verses; it was composed by Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna." And thereafter he only explains the two words "Madhyamaka" and "śāstra"; hence it is called abbreviated. Question: Why is it only called Madhyamakaśāstra and not titled with vipaśyanā [Madhyamakavipaśyanāśāstra / Zhongguan lun]? Answer: Madhyama is the real principle that is discussed; śāstra is the doctrinal approach that discusses it. If one clarifies principle and doctrine, then the meaning is completely comprehensive. As for what is called the expansive form, vipaśyanā is added to it. Thus, Dharma Master Tanying's Preface to the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Silencing these various extremes is called madhyama; inquiry and response, analysis and verification are called śāstra." He also says: "As for vipaśyanā, it simply means that vipaśyanā discriminates in the mind, while the treatise proclaims with the mouth." Question: Why is it completely titled with three words? Answer: Because of madhyama, vipaśyanā is generated; through vipaśyanā, the treatise is proclaimed. One must possess these three dharmas for the meaning to be complete. Next is the section on sequence. Question: What sequence do these three words have? Answer: There are two kinds of sequence: first, the sequence of that which transforms; second, the sequence of that which is transformed. As for the sequence of that which transforms, madhyama refers to the path traversed by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times and ten directions; therefore madhyama is clarified first. Due to this path, the correct vipaśyanā of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas is generated; therefore vipaśyanā is clarified next. Because there is correct vipaśyanā internally, the Buddha proclaims it with his mouth, naming it a sūtra; the bodhisattvas of the four reliances proclaim it with their mouths, designating it a treatise (śāstra). In terms of the sequence of the awakening and entry of those who are transformed, students receiving the teaching recognize madhyama through the treatise, and generate vipaśyanā through madhyama. Looking back toward the Buddha, through the teaching one recognizes the principle, and through the principle one generates vipaśyanā. Next is the section on formulation. As for why only three words are clarified—neither more nor less—there are roughly three meanings: First, Buddhas and bodhisattvas have two virtues in general: first, self-cultivation; second, transforming others. Madhyama and vipaśyanā refer to self-cultivation; the single word śāstra is transforming others. Self-cultivation and transforming others subsume all meanings without remainder; therefore only three words are marked. Second, transforming sentient beings must necessarily possess three things: first, the principle to be awakened to; second, generating vipaśyanā through the principle; third, proclaiming the treatise by means of vipaśyanā; therefore only three are clarified. Third, matching madhyama with vipaśyanā gives the names of object and cognition. Matching vipaśyanā with the treatise gives the designations of practice and exposition. Because vipaśyanā is generated through madhyama, madhyama is taken as the object and vipaśyanā as the cognition; practicing according to what has been expounded is vipaśyanā, and expounding according to what has been practiced is the treatise. Because the meanings are solely these four, the terms are only these three names. Next is the section discussing general and specific. Speaking generally, all three words are madhyama, all are vipaśyanā, and all are śāstra. As for what is meant by all being madhyama: the real principle is unswerving, so the principle is named madhyama. Through the principle of madhyama, vipaśyanā is generated; this vipaśyanā is not a biased vipaśyanā, so vipaśyanā is also named madhyama. Through the vipaśyanā of madhyama, the treatise is proclaimed; this treatise is not a biased treatise, so the treatise is also named madhyama. As for the three words all being vipaśyanā: madhyama is the vipaśyanā of the characteristics of meaning, vipaśyanā is the vipaśyanā of mental practice, and the treatise is the vipaśyanā of names and words. It is also like the three kinds of prajñā: madhyama is dharmatā-prajñā, vipaśyanā is contemplative prajñā, and the treatise is textual prajñā. As for the three kinds all being śāstra: the treatise is that which discusses, so it is named śāstra; the other two are that which is discussed, so they are also named śāstra. Speaking specifically, the real principle is unswerving, so it is given the name madhyama. Cognition is penetrating illumination, which corresponds to the designation of vipaśyanā. The treatise is verbal instruction, so it is designated śāstra. Next is the section clarifying mutual generation and mutual exhaustion. Within this, there are madhyama generating vipaśyanā, vipaśyanā generating madhyama, conditions exhausting vipaśyanā, and vipaśyanā exhausting conditions. As for what is called madhyama generating vipaśyanā: as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "The twelve links of dependent origination neither arising nor ceasing can generate contemplative cognition, just like a cucumber can generate a fever." As for vipaśyanā generating madhyama: sentient beings originally thought that causes and conditions are arising and ceasing, not knowing that they are madhyama; when, through correct vipaśyanā, they examine arising and ceasing and find nothing, they finally awaken to the fact that causes and conditions are madhyama—this is generating madhyama through vipaśyanā. As for conditions exhausting in vipaśyanā and vipaśyanā exhausting in conditions: the biased and erroneous conditions of ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and those with acquisitive views are exhausted within the bodhisattva's correct vipaśyanā; therefore it is called conditions exhausting in vipaśyanā. As for vipaśyanā exhausting in conditions: once erroneous conditions are exhausted, correct vipaśyanā also ceases; therefore it is called vipaśyanā exhausting in conditions. Because conditions are exhausted in vipaśyanā, they are not conditions; because vipaśyanā is exhausted in conditions, it is not vipaśyanā. Being neither conditions nor vipaśyanā, one knows not how to praise it, and forcibly calls it "correct vipaśyanā." Question: Since one gets conditions exhausting vipaśyanā and vipaśyanā exhausting conditions, does one also get madhyama exhausting vipaśyanā and vipaśyanā exhausting madhyama? Answer: One also gets that. Madhyama is the object of cognition; vipaśyanā is the cognition of the object. The object is not inherently an object; it is an object because of cognition. Cognition is not inherently cognition; it is cognition through the object. Being an object through cognition, the object is not inherently an object; being cognition through the object, cognition is not inherently cognition. Not inherently cognition, it is not cognition; not inherently an object, it is not an object. Therefore the object is exhausted in cognition, and cognition is exhausted in the object. Question: Does one also get conditions generating vipaśyanā and vipaśyanā generating conditions? Answer: Because of erroneous conditions, correct vipaśyanā is able to be revealed; this is conditions generating vipaśyanā. Because of correct vipaśyanā, conditions are revealed to be erroneous; this refers to vipaśyanā generating conditions. Next is the section individually explaining the three words. In general, in discussing the explanation of their meaning, there are four kinds: first, explaining the meaning based on the name; second, explaining the meaning in terms of principle and teaching; third, explaining the meaning in terms of mutual relation; fourth, indeterminate explanation of meaning. As for explaining the meaning based on the name: madhyama takes "real" as its meaning; madhyama takes "correct" as its meaning. As for madhyama taking "real" as its meaning: as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains the verse on 'originally existing and now non-existent': "I formerly had no real meaning of the middle way; therefore at present I have immeasurable afflictions." Master Sengrui's Preface to the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Taking madhyama as the name is to illuminate its reality." To illuminate means to reveal. Establishing the name madhyama is intended to reveal the reality of all dharmas; hence it says "to illuminate its reality." As for what is called "correct": the Avataṃsaka says, "The correct Dharma-nature is far removed from all paths of verbal expression; all destinies and non-destinies are completely the characteristic of quiescence." This correct Dharma is precisely the middle way. Departing from bias is called madhyama; opposing the erroneous is named correct. Master Sengzhao's Treatise on the Immutability of Things says: "The Treatise on Correct Vipaśyanā states: 'Contemplating the direction, one knows that another has departed; the one who departs does not arrive at the direction.'" Therefore we know that madhyama takes "correct" as its meaning. As for explaining the meaning in terms of principle and teaching: madhyama takes non-madhyama as its meaning. Why is this? The dharmatā of all dharmas is neither madhyama nor non-madhyama; for this dharma devoid of name and characteristic, for the sake of sentient beings, one forcibly explains it with names and characteristics, desiring to cause them to awaken to the nameless through these names; therefore one speaks of madhyama to reveal non-madhyama. Question: Where does the text come from stating that madhyama takes non-madhyama as its meaning? Answer: The Avataṃsaka says: "All dharmas of existence and non-existence are thoroughly understood to be neither existence nor non-existence." If so, all dharmas of madhyama and bias are thoroughly understood to be neither madhyama nor bias—this is precisely that case. As for what is called explaining the meaning in terms of mutual relation: madhyama takes bias as its meaning, and bias takes madhyama as its meaning. Why is this? Madhyama and bias have the meaning of causes and conditions; therefore one speaks of bias to cause awakening to madhyama, and speaks of madhyama to cause recognition of bias. As the sūtra says: "Expounding worldly truth causes recognition of the ultimate truth; expounding the ultimate truth causes recognition of the worldly truth." Fourth, as for the indeterminate explanation of meaning: madhyama takes matter (rūpa) as its meaning, and madhyama takes mind (citta) as its meaning. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Within one, understand the immeasurable; within the immeasurable, understand the one." Hence a single dharma can take all dharmas as its meaning, and all dharmas can take a single dharma as their meaning. Question: How many kinds of madhyama are there? Answer: Since it is called madhyama, it is neither many nor one; according to the meaning and in response to conditions, it can be expounded as many or one. As for what is called the single madhyama: the one path is pure and there is no second path. The one path is precisely the single middle way. As for what is called the twofold madhyama: madhyama is distinguished in terms of the two truths, namely worldly-truth madhyama and ultimate-truth madhyama. Because worldly truth is unswerving, it is named madhyama; because ultimate truth is unswerving, it is named ultimate-truth madhyama. As for what is called the threefold madhyama: the madhyama of the two truths and the madhyama of neither-ultimate-nor-worldly. As for what is called the fourfold madhyama: it refers to the madhyama opposing bias, the madhyama exhausting bias, the madhyama beyond duality, and the madhyama establishing prajñapti. As for the madhyama opposing bias: opposing the biased sickness of annihilation and permanence held by practitioners of the great and small [vehicles], the madhyama opposing bias is therefore expounded. As for the madhyama exhausting bias: if practitioners of the great and small [vehicles] possess the biased sickness of annihilation and permanence, then madhyama is not accomplished; if the biased sickness is exhausted, then it is named madhyama. Therefore the sūtra says: "Sentient beings give rise to views of two kinds in general: first, annihilation; second, permanence." Such two views are not named the middle way; having neither permanence nor annihilation is then named the middle way; hence it is named the madhyama exhausting bias. As for the madhyama beyond duality: originally, because of opposing the sickness of bias, there was madhyama; once the sickness of bias has been eliminated, madhyama is also not established. Being neither madhyama nor bias, for the sake of drawing out sentient beings, it is forcibly named madhyama; this refers to the madhyama beyond duality. Therefore this treatise says: "If there are no beginning and end, how could there be a middle?" The sūtra also says: "Being far removed from the two extremes, do not adhere to the middle way." This is precisely that case. As for the madhyama establishing prajñapti: existence and non-existence are prajñapti; neither existence nor non-existence is madhyama. Because of neither existence nor non-existence, one speaks of existence and non-existence; such a madhyama is for establishing prajñapti, which refers to the madhyama establishing prajñapti. Why is this? Truly because the correct path has never been existence or non-existence, yet for the sake of transforming sentient beings, one provisionally speaks of existence and non-existence; hence neither existence nor non-existence is taken as madhyama, and existence and non-existence are taken as prajñapti. Within the madhyama establishing prajñapti, there are meanings such as single and compound, loose and dense, horizontal and vertical, fully expounded as in the teaching on madhyama and prajñapti. For example, speaking of existence is single prajñapti, and non-existence is single madhyama; the meaning of non-existence is also like this. Existence and non-existence are compound prajñapti, and neither existence nor non-existence is compound madhyama. Existence and non-existence are loose prajñapti, and neither existence nor non-existence is loose madhyama. Non-existing existence is dense prajñapti, and existing non-existence is dense madhyama. Loose is horizontal, and dense is vertical. Next, explaining that madhyama is not identical, there can be four kinds: first, tīrthikas clarifying madhyama; second, Abhidharma clarifying madhyama; third, Tattvasiddhi clarifying madhyama; fourth, followers of the Mahāyāna clarifying madhyama. As for tīrthikas expounding madhyama: the Sāṃkhyas say, "A lump of clay is neither a jar nor not a jar; this is precisely the meaning of madhyama." The Vaiśeṣikas say, "Sound is neither named great nor named small." Vṛṣabha says, "Light is neither dark nor bright." These three masters all take a twofold negation as madhyama, yet they do not know why it is madhyama. As for Abhidharma followers explaining madhyama: there are phenomenal and principled [aspects]. Phenomenal madhyama is: the great king of taintlessness is not in the peripheral realms, meaning he is not in the desire realm nor in [the realm of] neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Principled madhyama is: the principle of suffering and origination is neither annihilated nor permanent. As for Tattvasiddhi followers clarifying the middle way: the text of their treatise directly says that departing from existence and departing from non-existence is named the noble middle way. And the masters of the treatise say: The middle way has three: first, worldly-truth middle way; second, ultimate-truth middle way; third, neither-ultimate-nor-worldly middle way. Fourth, as for Mahāyāna followers clarifying madhyama: as explained by the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the non-postulated truth—neither adhering to saṃsāra nor abiding in nirvāṇa—is named madhyama. For the foundational school, taking non-abiding as the madhyama of the essence is the combined approach. Opening the madhyama of the essence into two functions, namely ultimate and worldly, this is the madhyama of function. This is precisely the opened approach. Furthermore, the masters of madhyama and prajñapti say: neither existence nor non-existence is madhyama, yet existing and non-existing is prajñapti.