中觀論疏 1.19.6

1.19.6

此是攝嶺興皇始末，對由來義有此四重階級。 得此意者，解一師立中假體用意也。 又初非性有無以為中者，此是假前中義。 次而有而無名為二諦，是中後假義。 次假有非有假無非無二諦合明中道者，此是假後中義。 問：破性中此是假前中，二諦表中道是假後中，云何是中前假、中後假耶？ 答：中前假者未說體中，而前明於假，則上而有而無是也。 中後假者說體中竟，方說而有而無是也。 又中前假即從有無入非有非無，從用入體。 中後假非有非無假說有無，從體起用也。 中假義內具足明之，今略示大宗也。 後意明漸捨義，則世諦破性生滅，以辨不生不滅明於中道； 真諦破假生滅，以辨不生不滅明於中道。 二諦合明中則雙泯假性，欲同明二諦俱無生義，故與前異也。 問：世諦不性，生云不生； 真諦不假，生明不生。 此是釋八不？ 今二諦合明中道則云非生滅非不生滅，即是非八不？ 非非八不云何是釋八不義？ 答：八不言約意包。 若有生滅無生滅猶是生滅義，非生滅非不生滅乃是無生滅義，故二諦理雖泯生無生，猶是釋八不義也。 師又一時方言云：世諦即假生假滅，假生不生、假滅不滅，不生不滅為世諦中道。 非不生、非不滅為真諦中道。 二諦合明中道者，非生滅非不生滅，則是合明中道也。 問：此與上何異耶？ 答：此有二意。 一者則世諦生是不生，如色即是空，故不生即是世諦也。 真諦亦不生者，此則明相因義，因世諦生故明真諦不生。 云此是師正意也。 二者欲示階漸明義者，世諦中不生不滅，即是真諦之假，非是破性明中，乃明世諦假生、雖生不起，世諦假滅、雖滅不失，故生滅宛然而未曾生滅，故世諦之中即是真諦之假。 真諦假不生滅，此是生滅無生滅，故不生不滅宛然而未曾無生無滅，故是二諦合明雙泯二諦。 大意如前。 問：云何乃取真諦之假為世諦中耶？ 答：師云方等大意，言以不住為端、心以無得為主，故說世諦為令悟真，故以真諦假為世諦之中。 如《涅槃》云「欲令眾生深識第一義故說世諦」，又云「五受陰空名為苦義。 說苦為令捨樂，亦不住苦，故以空為苦義。 」說俗不令住俗，乃令因俗悟不俗，故以真諦為俗義。 真諦之中亦爾，說不生為明非生非不生，故非生非不生是不生義。 乃至說真俗二令悟不二，故不二以為二義。 《華嚴》云「一切有無法，了達非有無」，即其事也。 方言甚多，略明三種。 至後重牒八不，廣料簡之。

This is the complete system of Shelìng and Xīnghuáng, which provides these four successive stages in contrast to previous interpretations. One who grasps this intent understands the way a single master established the essence and function of the middle and provisional. Furthermore, the initial 'neither intrinsic existence nor non-existence' as the middle is the meaning of the middle prior to the provisional. Next, 'both existing and non-existing' as the two truths is the meaning of the provisional posterior to the middle. Next, 'provisional existence is not existence, provisional non-existence is not non-existence', unifying both truths to elucidate the middle way, is the meaning of the middle posterior to the provisional. Question: The middle that refutes intrinsic nature is the middle prior to the provisional, and the two truths manifesting the middle way is the middle posterior to the provisional; what are the provisional prior to the middle and the provisional posterior to the middle? Answer: The provisional prior to the middle is when the middle of essence has not yet been spoken, and the provisional is explained beforehand; that is the aforementioned 'both existing and non-existing'. The provisional posterior to the middle is when, after the middle of essence has been spoken, only then does one speak of 'both existing and non-existing'. Furthermore, the provisional prior to the middle enters into neither existence nor non-existence from existence and non-existence, entering from function into essence. The provisional posterior to the middle provisionally speaks of existence and non-existence from neither existence nor non-existence, giving rise to function from essence. This is fully explained within the meaning of the middle and provisional; here the general gist is briefly indicated. The subsequent meaning clarifies the sense of gradual abandonment: conventional truth refutes intrinsic-nature arising and ceasing to distinguish non-arising and non-ceasing and illuminate the middle way; ultimate truth refutes provisional arising and ceasing to distinguish non-arising and non-ceasing and illuminate the middle way. The middle unifying both truths simultaneously eliminates both provisionality and intrinsic nature, aiming to jointly illuminate the meaning that both truths are equally devoid of arising, and thus differs from the earlier presentation. Question: Conventional truth not having intrinsic nature, arising is said to be non-arising; ultimate truth not having provisionality, arising is explained as non-arising. Is this the explanation of the eight negations? Now, the middle way unifying both truths says 'neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and ceasing', which is the negation of the eight negations. How does what is not the eight negations constitute an explanation of the meaning of the eight negations? Answer: The words of the eight negations are concise, but their intent is comprehensive. If there were arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-ceasing, that would still fall under the meaning of arising and ceasing; neither arising and ceasing nor non-arising and ceasing is truly the meaning of non-arising and ceasing. Therefore, although the principle of the two truths eliminates both arising and non-arising, it is still an explanation of the meaning of the eight negations. The Master also gave an oral teaching at another time, saying: Conventional truth is provisional arising and provisional ceasing; provisional arising does not arise, and provisional ceasing does not cease; neither arising nor ceasing is the middle way of conventional truth. Neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is the middle way of ultimate truth. The middle way that unifies both truths: neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-ceasing is the middle way that unifies both truths. Question: How does this differ from the above? Answer: This has two meanings. First, conventional arising is non-arising, just as form is emptiness; hence non-arising is conventional truth. Ultimate truth is also non-arising; this clarifies the meaning of mutual dependency: dependent on conventional arising, ultimate non-arising is explained. It is said that this is the Master's primary meaning. Second, to demonstrate gradual stages in explaining the meaning: non-arising and non-ceasing within conventional truth is the provisionality of ultimate truth; it is not refuting intrinsic nature to reveal the middle, but rather clarifies that although conventional provisional arising arises, it does not originate, and although conventional provisional ceasing ceases, it is not lost; thus, while arising and ceasing appear distinctly, there has never been arising or ceasing; therefore, the middle of conventional truth is the provisionality of ultimate truth. Ultimate provisional non-arising and non-ceasing is arising-and-ceasing non-arising-and-ceasing; therefore, while non-arising and non-ceasing appear distinctly, there has never been non-arising or non-ceasing; hence, unifying both truths simultaneously eliminates both truths. The general idea is as before. Question: Why take the provisionality of ultimate truth as the middle of conventional truth? Answer: The Master said that the general intent of the Mahāyāna scriptures is that words take non-abiding as their starting point, and the mind takes non-attainment as its primary aim; therefore, conventional truth is taught to cause awakening to the ultimate, and thus the provisionality of ultimate truth is taken as the middle of conventional truth. As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'To cause sentient beings to deeply recognize the ultimate truth, conventional truth is proclaimed.' It also says: 'The emptiness of the five aggregates of clinging is called the meaning of suffering. Suffering is taught to cause the abandonment of pleasure without abiding in suffering either; hence emptiness is taken as the meaning of suffering.' Proclaiming the conventional is not meant to cause one to abide in the conventional, but rather to cause one, through the conventional, to awaken to the non-conventional; thus ultimate truth is taken as the meaning of the conventional. The middle of ultimate truth is also like this: teaching non-arising is to clarify neither arising nor non-arising, so neither arising nor non-arising is the meaning of non-arising. Up to: proclaiming the duality of ultimate and conventional is to cause awakening to non-duality, so non-duality is taken as the meaning of duality. As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Comprehending that all dharmas of existence and non-existence are neither existence nor non-existence'—this refers to precisely this matter. The oral teachings are very numerous; three kinds have been briefly explained. Later, when the eight negations are reiterated, this will be extensively analyzed.