淨名玄論 6.13

6.13

Regarding what is called existence and non-existence: because the preceding notion of svabhāva is rejected, svabhāva-existence cannot be found, and svabhāva-non-existence cannot be found either. If there were existence and non-existence, there could be both existence and non-existence, and neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. When the first two do not exist at all, how could the latter three exist? Therefore, all five propositions cannot be obtained, and the five eyes do not see them. In former days when I listened to lectures, I heard the Preceptor of Xinghuang quote the words of Great Master of Sheling: 'The five eyes do not see sentient beings or any phenomena outside of principle.' At that time, I did not yet believe and understand it; only after a long time did I realize it. Such persons and dharmas conceived with apprehension are originally non-existent; what would the five eyes see? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra repeatedly uses the self and person as analogies; furthermore, the sixteen views are utterly non-existent, so the five eyes do not see them. Now, persons and dharmas conceived as svabhāva-existence with apprehension are likewise not seen by the five eyes. Question: When examining these five propositions as unattainable, is this the non-existence of paramārtha-satya or not? Answer: This non-existence is outside the two truths and the two vehicles, because it is not subsumed by the two truths. One master holds two kinds of non-existence: first, it is called non-existence because something is negated; second, it is called non-existence because there is nothing at all. Being called non-existence because something is negated refers to apprehension: the five propositions are all utterly empty, which is what all Buddhas and bodhisattvas renounce; hence it is called non-existence. Explaining non-existence as having nothing at all refers to the non-existence of real truth within the two truths. Why? The two truths are distinctly existent yet non-existent, so they are called having nothing at all, and thus designated non-existence. Second, existence is explained in contrast to non-existence. Since there is no such notion of apprehension, there are the two truths of non-apprehension through nominal designation and causes and conditions of all Buddhas and bodhisattvas: existing because of non-existence, and non-existing because of not-non-existence. Such existence and non-existence are the domain where the cognition of existence and non-existence of Buddhas and bodhisattvas operates; thus it is called the object. Question: Why explain this existence and non-existence? Answer: Because the previous existence and non-existence could not be established, and the present existence and non-existence are established as such; it explains the sense of establishment in contrast to their failure, which is why this existence and non-existence are explained. Furthermore, it comes to guide those with the view of annihilation. Some people originally clung to svabhāva-existence and non-existence, and suddenly hearing that all five propositions are unobtainable, they gave rise to the view of annihilation, claiming that there are no such dharmas as the two truths, cause and effect, and so on. For the sake of such people, it is said that what is negated is merely the existence and non-existence of your views, not the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. As the Madhyamakaśāstra states in the Chapter on the Agent: 'This action arises from various conditions, and in birth has no definitiveness.' Like the existence and non-existence you describe, it is existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. Furthermore, in response to treatises such as the Abhidharma, they claim that their doctrine possesses cause, effect, and the two truths. Hearing the Three Treatises refute all dharmas, they give rise to the view of annihilation, thinking there are no dharmas such as cause, effect, and the two truths. Now we clarify that the old doctrines merely lack cause, effect, and the two truths, while now cause, effect, and the two truths are first able to exist. Why? When one posits conditions with apprehension, there is neither cause nor effect, and the two truths are not established; hence it results in the meaning of no cause and effect. Now, when cause and effect are established, they first become tenable; therefore, the meaning of cause and effect exists. Furthermore, having previously refuted svabhāva-existence and non-existence, the view of existence was refuted; now, by clarifying the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions, the view of non-existence is refuted. Wishing to reveal the middle way, the gate of existence and non-existence is explained.