淨名玄論 1.30

1.30

問：三門雖明絕四，而俱明不二，則是唯絕於二，未泯亦二亦不二、非二非不二、非非二非非不二，何謂教無不周、理無不足？答：子亦未體其旨，故猶生向疑。今重敘之，便煥然可領。總取諸二，凡有五階：初以兩法為二，如空有等。二者以空有為二，非空有為不二，此二不二相對，還復成二。三者二與不二皆名為二，非二非不二方名不二，此二不二相對，還復成二。四者上來六句皆名為二，非非二非非不二名為不二，此二不二相對，還復是成二。五者不泯生心動念故名為二，若泯生心動念方名不二，即此泯不泯，還復成二。故自二之外無更有法，但唱不二，則教無不周、理無不足，緣無不盡、觀無不淨。問：絕此五階，何門所攝？答：絕此五階，通是釋不二義。若欲分三門所絕異者，若絕五階法體，則屬初門。若絕五階之言，歸於第二。絕五階之借言，則第三門。此則釋前三門，同絕四句而絕四不同。問：上三絕釋三門，與攝法明三門，此有何異？答：三絕門但明絕有無四句，絕義猶淺。今攝法門，明絕一切句，故此門則深。問：雖有四句，上已絕之，何得復云後深前淺？答：雖同四句，四句不同。上三絕門但絕有無單四句耳，今明二不二四句者則是重複四句。問：何者為單？云何為複？答：一有、二無、三亦有亦無、四非有非無，此為單四句也。二不二四句則是複論四句。此二不二相對，此之兩句已攝前四句。三者此二不二相對上三句為二，非非二非非不二以為不二，此二不二相對，還復成二。後之兩句，超上四句。故以初門四句為單，後門四句為複。絕前四句則淺，絕複四句則深。問：但絕四句，明義已周。何用第五復泯生心動念耶？答：四句絕緣，第五盡觀，故復說也。問：經中明絕百非超四句，屬何門耶？答：亦備三門。若有非非法體，則屬初門。若有非非於言，則屬第二。若絕於借言，則是後門故也。問：若歷泯諸二，屬初門者中論明八不、泯於八法，但屬初門。則不二之門深，中觀之旨淺。答：不二之門則中實之理，以一道清淨故云不二。遠離二邊，目之為中。中對偏以受稱，不二待二以得名，約義不同，體無有異。不二之門既有三階，中實理亦則三實。以言泯八法，則屬初門。次息言不足言，便入第二。若絕借言，即歸第三。問：不二既竪究五句，不生亦可然乎？答：此猶一類義耳。如生既生，是不生亦是生，亦生亦不生、非生非不生、非非生非非不生，乃至生心動念，並皆是生。今唱不生，五生皆絕。故《釋論》云：不生不滅、不不生不不滅、不共非不共，名無生忍。問：五皆辨生，皆屬二攝。五種之二，可得皆是生耶？答：此亦一類義耳。若有五種之二，皆是生心動念，悉是生矣。所唱一不生，無教不周、無理不足，無緣不盡、觀無不絕。所以八不是方等之旨歸、環中之妙術矣。問：大小經論攝法多門，或以一門攝法二三四門，乃至眾多。今以何義但明二耶？答：二是別法之始、乖道之初、失於一道則便成二，今泯於二令歸一道，故但云不二。又二是異義、九十六術、五道三乘皆名為二，今泯斯異故云不二。又此異道，對於一道則復成二，為息此二故云不二。所以但約二門明攝法也。

Question: Although the three gates explain the cessation of the four phrases (catuṣkoṭi), they all explain nonduality; this is merely to cease duality, but has not yet eliminated 'both dual and nondual', 'neither dual nor nondual', and 'neither non-dual nor non-nondual'. How then can it be said that the teaching is entirely comprehensive and the principle is fully complete? Answer: You also have not grasped its purport, and therefore still give rise to the previous doubt. Now, if I set it forth again, it will be brilliantly clear and comprehensible. Taking all forms of duality collectively, there are five tiers in all: First, taking two dharmas as dual, such as emptiness and existence, and so forth. Second, taking emptiness and existence as dual and non-emptiness-and-existence as nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Third, both duality and nonduality are called dual, and only neither-dual-nor-nondual is called nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Fourth, the preceding six phrases are all called dual, and neither non-dual nor non-nondual is called nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Fifth, not eliminating the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity is called dual, while if one eliminates the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, it is only then called nondual; this very eliminating and not eliminating once again constitutes a duality. Therefore, outside of duality there is no other dharma; merely proclaiming nonduality means that the teaching is entirely comprehensive, the principle is fully complete, conditions are completely exhausted, and contemplation is completely purified. Question: Which gate subsumes the cessation of these five tiers? Answer: The cessation of these five tiers universally explains the meaning of nonduality. If one wishes to distinguish the differences in what the three gates put to rest: putting to rest the dharma-essences of the five tiers belongs to the first gate; putting to rest the words of the five tiers belongs to the second; and putting to rest the borrowed words of the five tiers is the third gate. This, then, explains that the preceding three gates equally put to rest the four phrases (catuṣkoṭi), yet their putting to rest the four phrases is not the same. Question: How does the preceding explanation of the three gates through the threefold cessation differ from explaining the three gates through subsuming all dharmas? Answer: The gate of the threefold cessation only explains the cessation of the four phrases of existence and nonexistence, so its meaning of cessation is still shallow. The present gate of subsuming all dharmas explains the cessation of all phrases whatsoever, and thus this gate is profound. Question: Although there are four phrases, since they were already put to rest above, how can one further say that the latter is profound and the former is shallow? Answer: Although they are equally four phrases, the four phrases are not the same. The preceding gate of the threefold cessation only puts to rest the simple four phrases of existence and nonexistence, whereas now explaining the four phrases of duality and nonduality is the compound four phrases. Question: What is simple, and what is compound? Answer: 1. existence; 2. nonexistence; 3. both existence and nonexistence; 4. neither existence nor nonexistence—these are the simple four phrases. The four phrases of duality and nonduality are the compound discourse of four phrases. These two phrases of duality and nonduality in mutual opposition already subsume the preceding four phrases. Third, taking this duality and nonduality in opposition to the preceding three phrases as dual, and neither non-dual nor non-nondual as nondual—this duality and nonduality in mutual opposition once again constitutes a duality. The latter two phrases transcend the four phrases above. Therefore, the four phrases of the first gate are taken as simple, and the four phrases of the latter gate are taken as compound. Putting to rest the former four phrases is shallow, while putting to rest the compound four phrases is profound. Question: Merely putting to rest the four phrases already completes the meaning; what need is there for the fifth, further eliminating the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity? Answer: The four phrases put conditions to rest, while the fifth exhausts contemplation; therefore it is explained again. Question: In the sūtras, when it explains putting to rest the hundred negations and transcending the four phrases, to which gate does this belong? Answer: It is also complete in the three gates. If it negates the dharma-essence of the negations, it belongs to the first gate. If it negates the words of the negations, it belongs to the second. If it puts to rest the borrowed words, it is the latter gate. Question: If eliminating each duality belongs to the first gate, then the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's explanation of the eight negations, which eliminates eight dharmas, would only belong to the first gate; then the gate of nonduality would be profound, and the purport of the Madhyamaka contemplation would be shallow. Answer: The gate of nonduality is precisely the principle of the middle and the real; because the single path is pure, it is called nondual. Being far removed from the two extremes is termed the middle. The middle receives its designation in opposition to the one-sided; nonduality acquires its name in dependence on duality. While their senses differ, their essence has no distinction. Since the gate of nonduality has three tiers, the principle of the middle and the real also has three realities. Eliminating the eight dharmas through words belongs to the first gate. Next, ceasing words as insufficient to speak of it enters the second. If one puts to rest borrowed words, one returns to the third. Question: Since nonduality vertically exhausts the five phrases, can non-arising also be like this? Answer: This is likewise of the same category of meaning. Just as arising is arising, non-arising is also arising; both arising and non-arising, neither arising nor non-arising, and neither non-arising nor non-non-arising, up to the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, are all arising. Now, when we proclaim non-arising, all five arisings are put to rest. Therefore the Dazhidulun says: 'Neither arising nor ceasing, not not-arising and not not-ceasing, not both and not neither, is called the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.' Question: The five all discern arising and are all subsumed under duality. Can the five kinds of duality all be considered arising? Answer: This too is of the same category of meaning. If there are the five kinds of duality, they are all the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, and all are arising. The single non-arising that is proclaimed leaves no teaching not comprehensive, no principle not complete, no condition unexhausted, and no contemplation that is not put to rest. Therefore the eight negations are the ultimate resort of the Vaipulya and the wondrous art at the centre of the circle. Question: The great and small sūtras and treatises subsume dharmas through many gates, sometimes subsuming dharmas with one gate, two, three, four gates, up to a great number. On what basis does one now explain only duality? Answer: Duality is the beginning of differentiated dharmas, the inception of diverging from the Way; losing the single path, it then becomes dual. Now, by eliminating duality to make it return to the single path, we merely speak of nonduality. Furthermore, duality is heterodox meanings; the ninety-six paths, the five destinies, and the three vehicles are all called dual. Now, by eliminating these differences, we speak of nonduality. Furthermore, these divergent paths, in opposition to the single path, once again constitute a duality; in order to cease this duality, we speak of nonduality. It is for this reason that we explain the subsuming of dharmas merely with reference to the two gates.