大乘玄論 5.12.1

5.12.1

第四章明解中觀論名。 然中觀論三字無定，亦言中觀論、亦言觀中論、亦言論中觀。 若中觀論，約論者為名。 若觀中論，就觀解為目。 若論中觀，約論功為稱。 所以然者，若為是約論者為名，中則通於理教，即是教中理中。 稟二諦教發生二智，教轉名境，中境發生觀智，是故初表中境、次表觀智。 中觀既興，論名得起。 中境發生觀智，用此觀智能研詳往復，是故名論。 故言中觀論。 若為是就觀解為目？ 明用此觀智能觀中正之境，用此觀智研覈是非，故言觀中論。 若為是約論功為稱？ 明論何所論，論只論於中觀。 若是他論則論於偏解，若是今論則論於中觀，故言論中觀也。 此釋不無有意，但非一家正意。 今問：何故啟初即題中觀耶？ 答：此深有所以。 明失道之緣，未見佛性、未應般若，心鎮遊生滅、意恒涉斷常，行生滅斷常故，所以乖於中道； 行邪錯故，所以失正法； 虛妄顛倒故，所以無實相。 今為對此，明離斷離常，所以是中道； 無邪錯故，所以是正法； 離虛妄故，所以是中實。 故今對此偏虛，故論題中實。 問：若箇是失道之緣？ 答：緣乃無量，大略為言不出三種：一者即是稟教失旨之緣； 二者即是邪見推獲之緣； 三者流俗汎爾之緣，亦非稟教失旨、亦非邪見推獲，直是流俗汎爾之緣。 今論所除，正破初一兼洗後二也。 問：起自何時迷教失旨耶？ 答：如論初，佛滅度後後五百歲，像法中人根轉鈍，稟中道二諦教不了，則是生滅斷常、一異來出，故成八非不。 今論主稟中道二諦教，則了不生不滅、不斷不常、不一不異、不來不出，故是八不。 以八非不故成虛妄，以八不故是中實也。 問：何以詺八非不為虛妄，以八不故名中實耶？ 答：外人謂有生有滅，今就其責生不可得，故生者不生； 今就其責滅不可得，故滅者不滅。 彼言有生滅，今責其生滅不可得，故即是無而謂有，故是虛妄。 論主言不生不滅，經中辨諸法實錄不生不滅，果自不生不滅，故是中實。 舉例如毘曇義，彼義言「分別諸法時，捨名則說等，分別無所捨，是名第一義」等，是名世諦故虛妄，第一義故則中實。 如世諦中言我，責我不得我名，空施無體應名，即是無而謂有，故道捨名則說等。 如噵十一種色共成色陰，實錄如此，有名召體、有體應名，故無所捨，即是第一義。 今時亦爾，外人所說無而謂有，故是虛妄。 論主出言果如經辨，故是中實也。 問：經中亦辨二諦中道，論中亦辨二諦中道，若為有異？ 答：異。 經中即明二諦中道，論中即明中道二諦。 所以然者，經中辨因教表理，因二顯不二，即是明二諦中道。 論中緣稟空有二教，即住空有二，故成迷失。 論主今破空有者不空有，畢竟洗假詺為中，即是前明中道、前明不二。 外人便過論主：若爾，經中那得辨有無二諦？ 論主即釋：經中辨有無，箇是方便之有無； 經中辨二諦，箇是假名之二諦，是故論中明中道二諦。 次更反此一句語，經中即辨中道二諦，論中即辨二諦中道。 所以然者，佛則以中道正觀赴緣，說真俗兩教，箇即是從體起用，不二出二，是故經中則辨中道二諦。 但緣稟真俗二諦教悉錯，是故成偏。 今論主彈真不真、破俗不俗，折彼偏執皆歸中解，是故明二諦中道也。 然此中觀論三名，有時合解、有時離釋。 雖復合解，合而不一； 雖復離釋，離而不異。 合而不一，所以不同； 離而不異，所以不別。 雖復合釋，三義不失； 雖復離解，一意圓通。 今前合釋，次明離解。 今前合釋，其相若為？ 中觀論非是用中境表觀智欲明境智異，今明以中釋觀。 此是何物觀？ 此是中觀。 此觀是中，名為中觀。 體中實發生正觀，只以此正觀能淨斷常，是故名論，所以名中觀論，此論那得異於中觀。 何故爾？ 若行生滅斷常則非中觀，今不行生滅斷常故是中觀。

Chapter 4 clarifies the title of the Madhyamakaśāstra (Zhongguan lun). However, the three characters zhong, guan, and lun are not fixed; one may also say Zhongguan lun, or Guan zhong lun, or Lun zhongguan. If it is Zhongguan lun, it takes its name from the author of the treatise. If it is Guan zhong lun, it takes its title with reference to meditative understanding. If it is Lun zhongguan, it takes its designation with reference to the treatise's function. Why is this? If it takes its name from the author of the treatise, zhong (middle) extends to both principle and teaching—that is, the middle of teaching and the middle of principle. Receiving the teaching of the two truths gives rise to the two gnoses; the teaching turns into the name cognitive object, and the middle cognitive object gives rise to contemplative gnosis. Therefore, it first expresses the middle cognitive object, and next expresses contemplative gnosis. Once middle-contemplation has arisen, the name 'treatise' (lun) can arise. The middle cognitive object gives rise to contemplative gnosis, and using this contemplative gnosis one can investigate back and forth; therefore it is called a treatise. Thus it is called Zhongguan lun. In what way does it take its title with reference to meditative understanding? It explains that one uses this contemplative gnosis to contemplate the cognitive object of the middle and correct, and uses this contemplative gnosis to scrutinize right and wrong; therefore it is called Guan zhong lun. In what way does it take its designation with reference to the treatise's function? It explains what it is that the treatise expounds: the treatise expounds nothing other than middle-contemplation. If it were other treatises, they would expound one-sided understandings; but being the present treatise, it expounds middle-contemplation. Thus it is called Lun zhongguan. This explanation is not without meaning, yet it is not the principal meaning of our lineage. Now it is asked: Why is it entitled Zhongguan from the very beginning? Answer: There is a profound reason for this. It is explained that conditions for straying from the path consist in having not yet seen the buddha-nature and having not yet accorded with prajñā; the mind constantly roams in arising and ceasing, and the intellect perpetually wanders into annihilationism and eternalism. Because they practice arising and ceasing, annihilationism and eternalism, they run counter to the Middle Way; because they practice what is deviant and erroneous, they lose the correct Dharma; because of unreal invertedness, they lack the true mark. Now, to counter this, it is explained that being free from annihilation and free from eternity is therefore the Middle Way; because it is free from deviance and error, it is the correct Dharma; because it is free from unreality, it is the middle-real. Thus, in countering this one-sidedness and unreality, the treatise is entitled with the middle-real. Question: Which ones are the conditions for straying from the path? Answer: The conditions are indeed immeasurable, but broadly speaking they do not go beyond three kinds: First, the condition of receiving the teaching but missing its purport; second, the condition of being driven by deviant views; third, the condition of ordinary worldly convention—which is neither receiving the teaching and missing its purport, nor being driven by deviant views, but simply the condition of ordinary worldly convention. What the present treatise eliminates primarily refutes the first one, while simultaneously cleansing the latter two. Question: From what time did the delusion regarding the teaching and the loss of its purport arise? Answer: As at the beginning of the treatise, in the latter five hundred years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, during the Semblance Dharma, people's faculties grew increasingly dull; receiving the teaching of the Middle Way and the two truths without comprehending it, they made it into arising and ceasing, annihilation and eternity, unity and difference, coming and going, thus becoming the eight non-negations. Now the master of the treatise, receiving the teaching of the Middle Way and the two truths, comprehended that things are unborn and unceasing, unannihilated and uneternal, not one and not different, not coming and not going; therefore these are the eight negations. Because of the eight non-negations, there is unreality; because of the eight negations, there is the middle-real. Question: Why are the eight non-negations called unreality, while because of the eight negations it is called the middle-real? Answer: Non-Buddhists say there is arising and ceasing. Now, when one interrogates them, arising cannot be found; hence what arises is unborn. Now, when one interrogates them, ceasing cannot be found; hence what ceases is unceasing. They say there are arising and ceasing, but now when one interrogates them, arising and ceasing cannot be found; hence there is claiming that what does not exist exists, which is unreality. The master of the treatise says 'unborn and unceasing'; the sūtras explain the true record of all phenomena as unborn and unceasing, and indeed they are naturally unborn and unceasing; hence this is the middle-real. To cite an example, as in the Abhidharma doctrine: their doctrine states that 'when analyzing all phenomena, that which is explained upon discarding the name, etc., is the conventional truth; that which is not discarded upon analysis is called the ultimate truth,' etc. Being the conventional truth, it is unreal; being the ultimate truth, it is the middle-real. Just as speaking of a 'self' in the conventional truth: when interrogating the self, one does not find it; the name is applied in vain without an entity answering to the name—this is claiming that what does not exist exists; hence they say that upon discarding the name it is explained, and so forth. Just as saying that the eleven kinds of form together constitute the aggregate of form: this is the true record; there is a name that summons the entity, and an entity that answers to the name, so there is nothing discarded, which is the ultimate truth. Now it is also like this: what is stated by non-Buddhists claims that what does not exist exists, so it is unreal. The words spoken by the master of the treatise are indeed as explained in the sūtras, so it is the middle-real. Question: The sūtras also explain the two truths and the Middle Way, and the treatise also explains the two truths and the Middle Way; in what way are they different? Answer: They are different. In the sūtras, it is the Middle Way of the two truths that is clarified; in the treatise, it is the two truths of the Middle Way that is clarified. Why is this? The sūtras explain that depending on teaching principle is expressed, and depending on duality non-duality is revealed; this is clarifying the Middle Way of the two truths. In the treatise, because beings received the two teachings of emptiness and existence, they immediately abided in the duality of emptiness and existence, thus ending up in delusion and loss. The master of the treatise now refutes those who cling to emptiness and existence by showing that they are not empty and not existent, completely scouring away designations to call it the Middle; this is first clarifying the Middle Way, first clarifying non-duality. Non-Buddhists then fault the master of the treatise: 'If so, how can the sūtras explain the two truths of existence and non-existence?' The master of the treatise then explains: The explanation of existence and non-existence in the sūtras is the existence and non-existence of expedient means; the explanation of the two truths in the sūtras is the two truths of conventional designation; therefore in the treatise it clarifies the two truths of the Middle Way. Next, reversing this sentence: in the sūtras it explains the two truths of the Middle Way, while in the treatise it explains the Middle Way of the two truths. Why is this? The Buddha meets conditions with the correct contemplation of the Middle Way and teaches the two teachings of ultimate and conventional; this is arising of function from essence, producing duality from non-duality; therefore in the sūtras he explains the two truths of the Middle Way. However, beings receiving the teaching of the two truths of ultimate and conventional all erred, and thus became one-sided. Now the master of the treatise exposes the ultimate as non-ultimate and refutes the conventional as non-conventional, breaking their one-sided attachments so that they all return to the understanding of the Middle; therefore it clarifies the Middle Way of the two truths. Now, these three names of Zhongguan lun are sometimes explained together, and sometimes explained separately. Although explained together, they are combined without being one; although explained separately, they are separated without being different. Combined without being one, they are therefore not identical; separated without being different, they are therefore not distinct. Although explained together, the three meanings are not lost; although explained separately, the single meaning is fully penetrated. Now we first explain them together, and next clarify them separately. Now, first explaining them together, what is its character? Zhongguan lun does not use the middle cognitive object to express contemplative gnosis in order to clarify that object and gnosis are different; now it is explained by using the middle to interpret contemplation. What kind of contemplation is this? This is middle-contemplation. This contemplation is the middle, hence it is called middle-contemplation. Experiencing the middle-real gives rise to correct contemplation; merely using this correct contemplation, one can purify annihilationism and eternalism; therefore it is called a treatise, and for this reason it is called Zhongguan lun. How could this treatise be different from middle-contemplation? Why is this? If one practices arising and ceasing, annihilationism and eternalism, it is not middle-contemplation; now, because one does not practice arising and ceasing, annihilationism and eternalism, it is middle-contemplation.