中觀論疏 1.6

1.6

"Now, stagnant delusion arises from inverted views": this is the third [section], recounting the circumstances of the treatise's composition. Within the text there are two parts: first, recounting the circumstances; second, clarifying Nāgārjuna's appearance in the world to refute delusion and compose the treatise. In the first part there are two lines: first, the delusions of ordinary beings; second, the failings of sages. The delusions of ordinary beings refer to the ninety-six heterodoxies and the class of those who give rise to craving. The failings of sages refer to those who cling to the Hīnayāna and to those of the Mahāyāna who grasp. These two encompass every failing. The first refers to self-established failings; the second to delusions arising from received teachings. The delusions of ordinary beings are divided into two: first, giving rise to the causes of delusion; second, the fruits attained through delusion. The two lines on the causes of delusion apply likewise to the fruits. As for "stagnant delusion," "stagnant" means attached and stuck, which is the class of those who give rise to craving. "Delusion" means confused and errant, which is the class of those who give rise to views. Sentient beings in samsāra, as householders, give rise to craving, and as renunciants, give rise to views; thus in the Lotus Sūtra they are poisonous insects and evil spirits—within the burning house there are only these two things; furthermore, the roots of samsāra are solely craving and views, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. "Arises from inverted views": the preceding line clarified the branches of craving and views; this line next traces their root. The reason craving and views exist is entirely that they arise due to erroneous, inverted views. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "Good and evil arise from the body; the body arises from covetousness; covetousness arises from false discrimination; false discrimination arises from inversion." Therefore, what is seen through inversion is the root of the craving and views of householders and renunciants. Moreover, since the preceding line clarified that there are craving and views, the subsequent line also has inversion and views. Inversion is just perversion; views mean false discrimination; hence just as there are two in the branches, there are also two in the root. "The three realms thereby sink and drown": this second part clarifies the fruit of failure. Giving rise to the two causes of craving and views brings about the two fruits of sinking and drowning in the three realms. Being submerged in water is drowning; sinking into earth is sinking. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Sentient beings are submerged amid such various sufferings"; using the great ocean as a metaphor for suffering, being submerged within suffering is the meaning of drowning. The three realms are impermanent, and the house collapsing and falling is the meaning of sinking. Hence, giving rise to the two causes of craving and views brings about the two fruits of impermanence and suffering. As the Lotus Sūtra says: the two causes of evil spirits and poisonous insects bring about the two fruits of the house collapsing and fire rising to burn the house. Master [Seng]rui's intention is entirely the same as that of the Lotus Sūtra and the discourse of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. "Partial awakening arises from the wisdom of aversion": this second part distinguishes the failings of sages. Because the failings of ordinary beings are heavy, they are clarified first; because the failings of sages are light, they are distinguished next; this is the sequence of heavy and light. Furthermore, the former was external delusion, while this distinguishes internal confusion; this is also the sequence of external being heavy and internal being light. Within the text there are two parts: first, directly distinguishing the failing; second, mutually elucidating and explaining attainment and failing. In the first part there are two lines: first, distinguishing the cause of the failing; second, clarifying the fruit of the failing. There are two causes of failing, and the fruits of failing are also two, corresponding to the above. As for "partial awakening," in contrast to the delusions of ordinary beings above, the sages are designated as awakened. When viewed toward the Mahāyāna, they are designated as partial; hence it says "partial awakening." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Persons of the two vehicles are called crooked in view"; it also says: "If with the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha one says there is no giving, this is named breaking the precepts and wrong view." The Lotus Sūtra says: "one-eyed, base, and low"; "one-eyed" means that what is seen is not correct; that is, the two views of emptiness and existence are both incorrect views. Taking the palace as true birth and the twin śāla grove as true extinction is called incorrect vision. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The emptiness of the two vehicles is named mere emptiness"; hence their view of emptiness is not correct. Furthermore, the two vehicles do not possess the correct contemplation of the middle way, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "They only see emptiness, but do not see non-emptiness." Therefore, not practicing the middle way and not seeing the Buddha-nature is named "partial awakening." "Arises from the wisdom of aversion": the second line traces the root of their awakening. The reason the two vehicles have partial awakening is that they loathe samsāra and delight in nirvāṇa. As the Lotus Sūtra says: "First they take their wages, and only then remove the dung." Persons of the two vehicles fear old age, sickness, and death, so they cut off greed, anger, and delusion to seek the eternal extinction of nirvāṇa; hence it is called "the wisdom of aversion." "Unyielding rectitude thereby brings about divergence": this second part clarifies the fruit attained. There are also two lines: first, recounting their deluded clinging; second, clarifying the fruit attained. As for "unyielding rectitude" (gengjie), expressions in the non-Buddhist classics vary, and various masters' explanations also differ, yet many do not grasp its essential meaning. What is clarified here as unyielding rectitude is like integrity of resolve: clinging rigidly to the Hīnayāna, they consider themselves ultimate and never turn their narrow minds to advance and seek the great Way; hence it is named unyielding rectitude. "Thereby brings about divergence": this second part clarifies the fruit attained. Since they cling rigidly to the Hīnayāna, they diverge from the great Way. The reason for this is that the Way is truly non-dual, yet they falsely claim it to be two; hence they diverge from the non-dual Way. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Arhats meander and linger with respect to the Buddha Way, and also falsely claim to have attained the Way." These are all the meaning of diverging from the Way. Furthermore, the Way is truly without arising and extinction, yet persons of the two vehicles claim that afflictions arise and by extinguishing them one attains [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and claim that the body and wisdom arise and by extinguishing them one attains [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "Discriminatingly expounding the arising and extinction of all dharmas and the five skandhas diverges from the meaning of the great Way of non-arising." Now, as this is so for the two vehicles, it is likewise so for the Mahāyāna that grasps: in the end, saying there is delusion to be extinguished and understanding to arise is still of the lesser. "Therefore know that the Great Awakening lies in vast illumination" onward: this second part mutually explains attainment and failing. First, it adduces the great attainment to reveal the small failing. "The Great Awakening lies in vast illumination": this adduces the great attainment. In contrast to the littleness of arising and extinction in the two vehicles, comprehending that all is without arising and ultimately empty is designated as vast illumination. Moreover, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna fully attains both emptinesses, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles also attain both emptinesses, but only by analyzing dharmas to clarify emptiness; hence it is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna attains the emptiness of intrinsic nature and the emptiness of specific characteristics, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and dharmas within the three realms, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna attains the emptiness within and outside the three realms, which is designated as vast illumination. Again, the two vehicles only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness, which is called small wisdom; the Mahāyāna sees emptiness and also non-emptiness; hence it is designated as vast illumination. As for "narrow mind," the texts say: "When one man guards the pass, ten thousand cannot advance." This is a name for being constricted and small. From "its illumination is not vast" onward: this elaborates the failings of the Hīnayāna. As for "level existence and non-existence," "level" (yi) glosses as making even; it means being unable to level and eliminate the two views of existence and non-existence. As for "unify the Way and the conventional," the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "In the dharma of the śrāvakas, it has not yet been taught that samsāra is itself nirvāṇa and sentient beings are themselves the Buddha." Therefore the two vehicles cannot unify the Way and the conventional. The Way is nirvāṇa; the conventional is samsāra. As for "whose knowing is not exhaustive cannot tread the middle path or obliterate the two extremes": walking on a mountain is step (jian); treading in water is ford (she); these are specific descriptions. Here the general meaning of walking is taken as treading. Because persons of the two vehicles do not illuminate principle to the utmost, they cannot walk the middle way. "Obliterate the two extremes": "obliterate" means extinguish; it says they cannot extinguish the two extremes. Question: It was stated earlier that unifying the Way and the conventional and leveling existence and non-existence are just obliterating the two extremes. Why say it again? Answer: Master [Seng]rui deeply saw the text's meaning. In the "Chapter on Nirvāṇa" there are two verses. The first says: "Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is not the slightest distinction. Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest distinction." This is the meaning of unifying the Way and the conventional. The next verse says: "The actual limit of samsāra and the actual limit of nirvāṇa—between these two limits, there is not a hair's breadth of difference." Since the treatise has both texts, here both meanings are again recounted. That the Way and the conventional are not leveled, and that the two limits are not obliterated, is the sorrow of the bodhisattva.