中觀論疏 2.12

2.12

Next, regarding the two truths combined having the eight negations, jointly clarifying the middle way of the two truths: here there are two meanings. The first is discussing the two truths jointly to explain the middle way; the second is eliminating the two to return to the non-dual to elucidate the middle of the essence (substance). As for jointly clarifying the two truths as the middle, there are again three meanings: First, wishing to explain the meaning in the sūtras and śāstras that only clarify the two truths—namely, that the two truths subsume dharmas comprehensively, so there is no need to explain three truths. Second, clarifying the two truths separately is clarifying the middle of function separately; clarifying the two truths jointly is elucidating the middle of function jointly. Third, clarifying that which is neither ultimate nor conventional is the middle of essence. This explains the meaning of the three truths in the sūtras. Question: How is it that only the two truths are clarified as the middle? Answer: It is precisely the former meaning of the middle way of the two truths of Master [Tan]ying of the Guanzhong region. He said: "Because of the ultimate, there is no existence; because of the conventional, there is no non-existence. Because of the ultimate there is no existence, yet though non-existent, it exists. Because of the conventional there is no non-existence, yet though existent, it is non-existent. Though non-existent it exists, not stagnating in non-existence; though existent it is non-existent, not burdened by existence. Not stagnating in non-existence, it is not annihilated; not burdened by existence, it is not permanent. This is precisely the middle way of neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor permanence." This jointly explains the meaning of four negations, because arising and permanence are existence, and ceasing and annihilation are non-existence. Regarding "neither unity nor difference": by analogy with the above, one should say that on account of the conventional truth, it is not one; on account of the ultimate truth, it is not different. Because of the conventional there is no unity: though different, they are one; because of the ultimate there is no difference: though one, they are different. Though different, they are one, hence one does not stagnate in difference; though one, they are different, hence one does not cling to unity. Neither unity nor difference is called the middle way. If treated in terms of refutation and establishment: Kaishan claimed that the ultimate and the conventional are of one essence, hence calling them "unity." Longguang claimed that the ultimate and the conventional are of different essences, hence saying they are "different." Now both are rejected, and thus it is said to be neither unity nor difference. Therefore, when Vasubandhu commented on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, he clarified ten kinds of mental distractions, and unity and difference are two kinds of mental distractions; therefore we know that the ultimate and conventional cannot be one or different. The Mahāsattva Fu of Dongyang in his verse on the two truths says: "The two truths are not a pair, / ever diverging, never apart. / Sinking and floating, following and not following, / fluttering, anchored yet unanchored." That man originally did not study, yet he still knew that the two truths cannot be one or different; how much less should those who examine the sūtras and śāstras harbor fixed attachments? Regarding "neither coming nor departing": because the ultimate truth is empty, it does not come; because the conventional truth exists, it does not depart. "Departing" is like "going away." It can be understood by analogy with the above. Question: Having already clarified the middle way of the two truths separately, why clarify the middle way of the two truths jointly again? Answer: If one only clarifies the conventional truth and does not clarify the ultimate truth, one falls biasedly to the side of existence; if one only clarifies the ultimate truth and does not clarify the conventional truth, one falls biasedly to the side of emptiness. Now, clarifying the two truths jointly departs from these two extremes, and is therefore called the middle way. Dharma Master Dalang taught Zhou Yong the two truths, and that man authored the Treatise on the Three Theses, saying: "The reason why the Buddha established the two truths is that all dharmas possess both emptiness and existence, so they are not biased; hence it is called the middle way." Question: The conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature, and the ultimate truth transcends the provisional. When clarifying the two truths jointly, what bias is remedied? Answer: If one only clarifies that the conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature and does not clarify that the ultimate truth transcends the provisional, it is called biased. If one only clarifies that the ultimate truth transcends the provisional and does not clarify that the conventional truth transcends intrinsic nature, in principle it is also biased. When one clarifies both truths comprehensively, both transcending the provisional and the real, only then is the principle complete and correct, and thus it is called the middle way. Question: What is the middle and provisional when jointly clarifying the two truths? Answer: Jointly clarifying departure from the two biases is the middle; jointly clarifying the dependent origination of the two truths is the provisional.