中觀論疏 10.4

10.4

The chapter opens into two parts: first, the opponent faults the author of the treatise for grasping emptiness as their common [standpoint]; second, the author of the treatise refutes the opponent's grasping existence as their common [standpoint]. This means using the opponent to refute nihilistic views and put an end to the annihilationist mindset of those who grasp the teachings; and relying on the author of the treatise to refute existence and eliminate the eternalist view of ordinary reckonings. Since the four truths are the grand tenet of the Buddha-Dharma and fully encompass worldly and supramundane dharmas, this chapter takes them up to refute annihilationist and eternalist views, reveal the middle way, and cause contemplation to arise based on the middle [path]. Within the opponent's faulting of the author of the treatise, it is again divided into two: first, prose; second, verses. The prose can have two senses: first, the genesis showing how it follows upon the 'Chapter on Errors' to lead to the 'Chapter on the Four Truths'; second, the intention to fault the author's [assertion of] emptiness, hence first establishing the meaning of having the four truths. As for the verses, they are divided into two: first, faulting the author of the treatise with having no four truths, no Three Jewels, and no supramundane dharmas; second, faulting the author of the treatise with having no cause and effect, no sin and merit, and no worldly dharmas. The first also has two parts: the first half-line repeats the author's grasping of emptiness; from 'If so, then there are no...' onward, the second raises faults against the author of the treatise. This is again divided into two distinctions: first, explaining that there are no four truths; next, explaining that there are no Three Jewels. Because there is no arising, there is no suffering or accumulation, for suffering is what is arisen, and accumulation is what can bring it to arise. Because there is no cessation, there is no cessation or path; the path truth can extinguish, extinguishing up to the cessation truth, and since there is no cessation, how could there be cessation or path? From 'Because there are no four truths...' onward, the second explains that there are no Three Jewels. This is again divided into two distinctions: first, separately explaining that there are no Three Jewels; next, a half-line summarizing that the three do not exist. Separately explaining that the three do not exist constitutes three distinct sections. Within the absence of the Sangha jewel, it is again divided into two: the first two verses separately explain that there is no Sangha; the following half-verse summarizes that there is no Sangha. The two verses are two: the first verse explains that there are no four practices; the next verse discerns that there are no directions and fruits; the text is quite plain to see. Furthermore, the first verse means there are no objects of the four truths; the next verse means there is no cognition of the four truths. From the third verse onward, it explains the absence of the Sangha jewel; this interpretation is good and ought to be followed. Later, when the author of the treatise returns the faults to the opponent, he also makes this distinction. From 'The dharma of emptiness destroys cause and effect...' onward, the second faults the author of the treatise for grasping emptiness and losing cause and effect, sin and merit. Question: Previously, it was already explained that the absence of the four truths and Three Jewels universally destroys worldly and supramundane cause and effect; why is it explained again now? Answer: There are altogether three meanings. First, what was explained previously was that a person who grasps emptiness has neither the four truths nor the Three Jewels spoken when the Buddha went to the Deer Park, through to the teaching at the Twin Trees; now it explains that there is no cause and effect, sin and merit of humans and devas spoken for Trapuṣa and others when the Buddha first attained the Way; hence a person who grasps emptiness completely destroys the teachings of the five vehicles. Second, what was explained above was the absence of internal dharmas' cause and effect, sin and merit; now it explains the absence of external dharmas' cause and effect, sin and merit, namely worldly benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and so forth. Third, what was explained above was the absence of the objective realm of sin and merit; now it explains that there are no Three Jewels of sin and merit. The four truths are the objective realm of sin and merit: having faith in them engenders merit; slandering them incurs sin. In the reply, there are thirty-four verses, broadly divided into three: the first thirteen lines explain that the opponent is confused about emptiness; from 'As for what you said above about the faults in the dharma of emptiness...' onward, the second refutes the opponent's attachment to existence; from 'If there were no emptiness...' onward, the third two lines are an admonition and exhortation, admonishing them to abandon emptiness of fixed nature and exhorting them to study dependent origination.