淨名玄論 3.21

3.21

Next, explaining jointly the inconceivability of the real and the conventional. This also first demonstrates the fault to clarify what is not inconceivable, and afterwards explains the correct understanding to show what truly is inconceivable. If one has apprehension, the real and the conventional each abide in their own inherent nature; thus the real cannot be the conventional, and the conventional cannot be the real. Such "real" and "conventional" are the root of the two views of annihilationism and eternalism. As the Lotus Sūtra says: "Relying upon these views—whether of existence or nonexistence—the sixty-two [views] are completely fulfilled." This merely exposes the existence and nonexistence from which the two views arise within what is conceivable; how could it be called inconceivable? We now explain that emptiness and existence are dependent origination: if existence were not empty, it would not exist; if emptiness were not existent, it would not be empty. Emptiness unmistakably is existence, and existence unmistakably is emptiness. Thus Master Zhao said: "It is like an illusory person: it is not that there is no illusory person, but the illusory person is not a real person." The person is unmistakably not a person, and not a person is unmistakably a person. Ratnakūṭa praised: "Able to skillfully distinguish the characteristics of all dharmas, yet remaining unmoved in the ultimate truth." This is to distinguish all dharmas without moving from the ultimate truth, and not to move from the ultimate truth while distinguishing all dharmas. Such unimpeded dependent origination of emptiness and existence is practiced only by Buddhas and bodhisattvas; hence it is called inconceivable. The explanation above of the inconceivability of the three objects and three cognitions is concluded.