大乘玄論 5.9.1

5.9.1

大師讀此論，遍數不同，形勢非一。 今略出十條：一者有時明四論宗旨，釋中觀名題，解經論相資、諦智傍正、破申近遠，然後乃入論文。 所以然者，欲明義有詮次文參渙然，稟學門徒尋求易曉。 二者在論初直爾散說大意，仍進論文。 此欲提綱振領揚略要旨，裕其玄莫彰至其後發。 三者先盛解二諦竟即釋論文。 明佛說二諦以表正道，今論以二諦為宗，推功有在也。 四者前明二智後入論文。 明佛以二智說教菩薩，今以權實顯正破邪，故須斷簡二智也。 五者彈碩古今破斥異部。 所以然者，自古迄今凡諸制作，並不稟龍樹之風，皆是斷常，擾於至道，故須廣破始得讀文也。 六者前讀關河舊序，如影叡所作。 所以然者，為即世人云：數論前興、三論後出。 欲示關河相傳師宗有在，非今始搆也。 七者或直唱《無行》、《佛藏》等經然後入論。 欲明經論相成共顯一道，經旨可見、論意易明也。 八者對訶梨所造、旃延之作，欲明大小軀分得無得異也。 九者或面折異學，仍即入論，欲使執固者改迷、慕位者深悟。 十者或直爾披文更無別說，欲明此論出自菩薩中心，精破妙解蘊在文內，輒抽拙意何以加此，故直讀文也。 法師所以講論有多形勢者，略有三義：一者明法師善識根緣調停物性，稟悟既甚多種，演暢亦復不窮。 二者欲異他人。 他人立義定作一說，聽者唯作一解，了無轉悟。 今明諸法無一定相，豈唯一種？ 三者龍樹、提婆妙思深遠權巧萬端，今時傳述寧可一概？ 今就論初，大為五章：一明破申大意、二者明四論宗旨義有同異、三者明經論能所諦智傍正、四者釋《中觀》論名、五者明論緣起問答斷簡。 所以須辨破申大意者，無問內外學徒，凡有製作皆辨破申，故內外並云自是而非彼、美己而惡人。 次內經敘述外道所計云：是事實，餘皆妄語。 次《成實》破斥數經，以四諦命重更顯斯實。 如此之流，盡欲破他申己，既出虛妄橫搆，皆不成破申； 今時論意善巧方便助佛揚化方是破申，故在初明其大意也。 破申只是破邪顯正，即是滅邪見幢、燃正法炬。 問：誰能破邪？ 用何顯正？ 答：不出人、法，人即是聖人、法名正法，若備法人則能破邪顯正。 就此則有三雙：一者佛與菩薩、二者經論、三者破申。 言佛與菩薩者，佛以中道二智所說名經，菩薩以中道二慧所吐名論。 佛以中道二智所說名經，經即是教。 教何所示？ 教則教緣。 緣何所稟？ 緣只稟教。 故緣教相應，無不悟入。 言悟入者，教辨真俗、緣悟不真不俗，教說因果、緣悟不因不果，其餘例然。 故因教悟理，悟理故了教。 教是理門，故因教達理，感應因緣冥若扶契，響然而有、壑爾而無，此即佛說教為緣之意也。 但教流末代，鈍根薄福，尋教失旨，不知佛意。 故論初云「求五陰十二入十八界等決定相，但著文字不知佛意； 聞大乘法中說畢竟空，不知何因緣故空。 即生見疑，故於有生見、於空生疑。 」所以然者，為有所得心有依有得，當聞真俗住真俗，不知本於不真不俗，故還就真俗以求真俗之實，不知就非真非俗以求真俗； 還就真俗以解真俗，不知用非真非俗以解真俗； 還就末中求末，不知就本求末。 本是末本，既不識非真俗本，故不識真俗之末，因果等諸事義例皆然。 故如他人，或謂真俗一體、或言異體、或言因中先有果、或言因中先無果等，有所言說並出彼妄情所搆，曾非經論所明，是故斷常交興、生滅競起，邪言隱覆、正教不申。 所以龍樹菩薩府茲弱喪，顯八不教門，折彼斷常、周還不二，破申之義大略如此也。 問：若箇是邪而言破邪，何者是正而噵申正？ 答：邪既無量，正亦多途。 大略為言，不出二種，謂有得與無得，有得是邪須破，無得是正須申。 故《大品經》善吉致問：何等是菩薩道？ 何等非菩薩道？ 佛答云：有所得非菩薩道，無所得是菩薩道。

When the Great Master lectured on this treatise, the frequency varied, and his approach was never only one. Now I briefly set forth ten points: First, he would at times explain the overarching tenet of the four treatises, elucidate the title *Madhyamaka*, explain the mutual assistance between sūtras and treatises, the primary and secondary roles of truth and gnosis, and the proximal and distal aspects of refutation and exposition, and only then enter the treatise text. The reason for this was to clarify that the doctrinal principles have orderly sequence and the textual points are lucidly displayed, so that disciples receiving the teaching could investigate and easily comprehend. Second, at the beginning of the treatise he would directly and informally discuss the general import, and then proceed into the text of the treatise. This was intended to grasp the main threads and highlight the essentials, keeping its profound mystery concealed until revealed thereafter. Third, he would first comprehensively explain the two truths, and upon concluding immediately interpret the treatise text. This clarified that the Buddha taught the two truths to express the correct path, and now this treatise takes the two truths as its tenet, showing where the credit belongs. Fourth, he would first explain the two gnoses and afterwards enter the treatise text. This clarified that the Buddha taught the bodhisattvas by means of the two gnoses, and now through the provisional and the real one reveals the correct and refutes the heterodox; hence it was necessary to distinguish the two gnoses. Fifth, he would criticize the ancient and modern and refute the heterodox schools. The reason for this was that from antiquity to the present, all writings generally did not inherit the style of Nāgārjuna; they all fell into annihilationism or eternalism and threw the supreme path into confusion; hence he had to refute them broadly before being able to read the text. Sixth, he would first read the old Guanhe prefaces, such as those written by Sengying and Sengrui. The reason for this was that worldly people at the time said that the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises arose first and the Three Treatises emerged later. He wished to show that the Guanhe transmission had a lineage of masters and was not newly fabricated at present. Seventh, he would at times directly chant sūtras such as the *Wuxing jing* and *Fozang jing*, and then enter the treatise. He wished to clarify that sūtras and treatises complement each other to jointly reveal the one path; then the purport of the sūtras could be seen and the intent of the treatise easily understood. Eighth, he would contrast the treatise composed by Harivarman with the work of Kātyāyana, wishing to clarify whether the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna divisions pertain to attainment or non-attainment. Ninth, he would at times confront and refute heterodox scholars to their faces, and then immediately enter the treatise, wishing to cause those who clung stubbornly to abandon their delusion and those who aspired to attainments to deeply awaken. Tenth, he would at times simply open the text without any other exposition, wishing to clarify that this treatise issued from the mind of a bodhisattva, its precise refutations and wondrous understandings already contained within the text, so how could one arbitrarily insert clumsy opinions to add to it? Hence he directly read the text. As for why the Dharma master had many different approaches when lecturing on the treatise, there are briefly three reasons: First, to show that the Dharma master was skilled in discerning faculties and conditions to harmonize the nature of beings; since receptive awakenings were of very many kinds, his expositions were likewise inexhaustible. Second, he wished to differ from others. When others establish an interpretation, they fix upon a single explanation, so the listeners grasp only a single comprehension, having no transformative awakening at all. Now he clarified that phenomena have no fixed characteristic, so how could there be only one kind? Third, Nāgārjuna and Deva possessed profound and wondrous thoughts with myriad expedient means; how could transmitting them in our time be uniform? Now, with regard to the beginning of the treatise, it is broadly divided into five sections: First, clarifying the general purport of refutation and exposition; second, clarifying that the overarching tenets of the four treatises contain both similarities and differences; third, clarifying the agent and object of the sūtras and treatises, and the primary and secondary roles of truth and gnosis; fourth, elucidating the title of the treatise *Madhyamaka*; fifth, clarifying the conditions of the treatise's origin, addressing doubts through question and answer. Why is it necessary to distinguish the general purport of refutation and exposition? Whether internal or external students, whenever they compose writings, they all distinguish refutation and exposition; thus both internal and external schools claim that they themselves are right and others are wrong, praising themselves and disparaging others. Furthermore, internal sūtras describe what non-Buddhists assert, saying: 'This is real, everything else is false speech.' Next, the *Tattvasiddhi* refutes the Sarvāstivāda sūtras, using the four truths to re-emphasize and re-reveal this truth. Such lines of thought all wish to refute others and establish themselves, but since they stem from delusive fabrications, none of them accomplishes true refutation and exposition. The intent of the present treatise is to use skillful means to assist the Buddha in spreading his transformation; only this is true refutation and exposition. Therefore, its general purport is clarified at the beginning. Refutation and exposition are simply refuting the heterodox and revealing the correct; that is, felling the banner of wrong views and kindling the torch of the correct Dharma. Question: Who can refute the heterodox? What is used to reveal the correct? Answer: It does not go beyond persons and Dharma: 'person' means the sage; 'Dharma' is called the correct Dharma. If one possesses both Dharma and person, one can refute the heterodox and reveal the correct. Regarding this, there are three pairs: first, the Buddha and bodhisattvas; second, sūtras and treatises; third, refutation and exposition. As for the Buddha and bodhisattvas: what the Buddha spoke by means of the two gnoses of the Middle Way is called sūtras; what the bodhisattvas expressed by means of the two wisdoms of the Middle Way is called treatises. What the Buddha spoke by means of the two gnoses of the Middle Way is called sūtras, and sūtras are teaching. What does teaching show? Teaching instructs conditions. What do conditions receive? Conditions merely receive teaching. Therefore, when conditions and teaching correspond, there are none who do not awaken and enter. As for 'awakening and entering': the teaching distinguishes the ultimate and conventional, while conditions awaken to what is neither ultimate nor conventional; the teaching speaks of cause and effect, while conditions awaken to what is neither cause nor effect; the rest follow this pattern. Therefore, due to teaching one awakens to principle; because one awakens to principle, one understands the teaching. Teaching is the gateway to principle; hence due to teaching one reaches principle. Stimulus and response through dependent co-arising tally in secret like fitting tallies: resounding, they exist; vast and empty, they are non-existent. This is precisely the Buddha's intent in speaking teachings for conditions. However, when the teachings flowed down to the final age, those of dull faculties and meager merits pursued the teachings and lost their purport, not knowing the Buddha's intent. Therefore, the treatise states at the beginning: 'Seeking fixed characteristics of the five aggregates, twelve sense-bases, eighteen elements, and so forth, they merely cling to words and letters and do not understand the Buddha's intent. Hearing that in the Mahāyāna teaching complete emptiness is spoken of, they do not understand due to what conditions it is empty. Thereupon they give rise to views and doubts: towards existence they give rise to views, and towards emptiness they give rise to doubts.' Why is this? Because with a mind of attainment, having reliance and having attainment, when they hear of the ultimate and conventional they abide in the ultimate and conventional, not knowing that they are rooted in what is neither ultimate nor conventional. Thus they turn back to the ultimate and conventional to seek the reality of the ultimate and conventional, not knowing to turn to what is neither ultimate nor conventional to seek the ultimate and conventional; they turn back to the ultimate and conventional to understand the ultimate and conventional, not knowing to use what is neither ultimate nor conventional to understand the ultimate and conventional; they turn back to the branches to seek the branches, not knowing to turn to the root to seek the branches. The root is the root of the branches; since they do not recognize the root of what is neither ultimate nor conventional, they do not recognize the branches of the ultimate and conventional. All matters and principles, such as cause and effect, are all like this. Therefore, just as others say, some claim that the ultimate and conventional are of one substance, some say they are of different substances, some say that within the cause the effect already exists, and some say that within the cause the effect does not previously exist, and so forth; whatever they state all comes from what their deluded sentiments fabricate, and has never been what the sūtras and treatises clarify. Therefore, annihilationism and eternalism arise by turns, production and cessation contend to occur, heterodox words conceal [the truth], and correct teachings are not expounded. Therefore, Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna took pity on this degeneration, revealed the teaching gateway of the eight negations, broke down their annihilationism and eternalism, and returned all to non-duality. The meaning of refutation and exposition is broadly like this. Question: What is heterodox such that one speaks of refuting the heterodox, and what is correct such that one speaks of expounding the correct? Answer: Since the heterodox is immeasurable, the correct is also of many paths. Broadly speaking, they do not go beyond two kinds, namely attainment and non-attainment. Attainment is heterodox and must be refuted; non-attainment is correct and must be expounded. Therefore, in the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, Subhūti asked: 'What is the bodhisattva path? What is not the bodhisattva path?' The Buddha answered: 'Attainment is not the bodhisattva path; non-attainment is the bodhisattva path.'