中觀論疏 2.20

2.20

Sixth: Section on identity and difference. Before Master Kumārajīva arrived in Chang'an, there were originally three schools of doctrine. The first was Shi Dao'an's explanation of original non-existence (benwu). He maintained that non-existence precedes the ten thousand transformations, and emptiness is the beginning of all forms. What mortals cling to is clinging to non-being; if one relies on the mind of original non-existence, then divergent thoughts will cease. Master Sengrui said: 'Categorising concepts (geyi) is circuitous and contradicts the original [meaning], while the six schools are biased and do not attain [the truth].' Master [Sengrui] also said: 'The Upādhyāya [Dao]an cleared a path through the wilderness to open up a track, marking the profound purport upon the emptiness of intrinsic nature. Testing it by the work of the furnace, only the school of the emptiness of intrinsic nature most truly attained the reality.' Examining this meaning, Dao'an's explanation of original non-existence means that all phenomena are originally empty and tranquil in their intrinsic nature; hence he calls it original non-existence. This is not different from the Mahāvaipulya sūtras and śāstras or the doctrines of the mountain school of Kumārajīva and Sengzhao. Next, Master Fa-chen said: 'Original non-existence means that before material phenomena (rūpa) existed, there was first non-existence. Therefore, existence emerged from non-existence; that is, non-existence preceded existence, and existence followed non-existence. Hence it is called original non-existence.' This interpretation was refuted by Master Sengzhao's 'Treatise on the Emptiness of the Non-Absolute' (Buzhenkong lun), and is also something not taught in the sūtras and śāstras. If non-existence precedes existence, it would not be existence; its original nature would be non-existence, meaning prior non-existence and subsequent existence, returning from existence to non-existence. A sūtra says: 'If phenomena are prior existence and subsequent non-existence, then all Buddhas and bodhisattvas would incur fault. If they are prior non-existence and subsequent existence, they would also incur fault.' Therefore, [our teaching] does not agree with this doctrine. Second is the doctrine of matter-as-such (ji se). But there are two schools of matter-as-such: First, the Guannei [school of] matter-as-such clarifies that matter as such is empty. This clarifies that matter has no intrinsic nature, and therefore says that matter as such is empty; it does not say that matter as such is originally empty in its intrinsic nature. This doctrine was rebuked by Master Sengzhao. Master Sengzhao said: 'This is merely understanding that matter is not self-existent matter, but failing to comprehend that matter is non-matter.' Next, Zhi Daolin composed the 'Treatise on Wandering in the Profound through Matter-as-Such' (Jise youxuan lun), clarifying that matter as such is empty; hence it is called 'Wandering in the Profound through Matter-as-Such'. This is still explaining the true nature without destroying provisional designations, and thus is not different from Master Dao'an's emptiness of intrinsic nature. Third is Master Fayun's use of the doctrine of the mind's non-existence (xinwu). 'Mind's non-existence' means having no mind toward the myriad things, while the myriad things have never been non-existent. The purport of this interpretation is: when the sūtras say that all phenomena are empty, they wish to make the mental substance empty and free from grasping, and hence speak of non-existence. They do not empty external things; that is, the objects of the myriad things are not empty. Master Sengzhao examined this, saying: 'Its gain lies in the stillness of the spirit, but its loss lies in [denying] the emptiness of things.' The refutation means: it only knows that the mind is empty, but still maintains that things exist; this theory has both gain and loss. These four masters were established during the Jin dynasty. Coming down to Master Tanyi of the Da Zhuangyan Monastery, who composed the 'Treatise on the Seven Schools' (Qizong lun), he recounted the previous four as four schools, and fifth, Yu Fakai established the doctrine that consciousness contains [all things] (shihan). The three realms are a dwelling of the long night; the conscious mind is the master of the great dream. What are seen now as the myriad existences are all seen within the dream. When one awakens from the great dream and dawn breaks over the long night, then the inverted, deluded consciousness is extinguished, and the three realms are entirely empty. At that time, there is nothing from which things arise, yet there is nowhere they do not arise. An objection says: If so, at the time of great awakening one would not see the myriad things, and thus conventional truth would be lost. What would the five eyes of the Tathāgata see? Sixth, Master Zhu Fayi said: The phenomena of conventional truth are all like illusions and transformations. Therefore, the sūtras say: 'From the beginning they have never existed.' An objection says: Sūtras state that what is done by illusions and transformations produces neither demerit nor merit. If all phenomena are completely identical to illusions and transformations, what difference would there be between a real person and an illusory person? Furthermore, sūtras borrow emptiness to refute substantiality, but here one clings to emptiness after substantiality is gone. This fails to grasp the intention of the sūtras. Seventh, Yu Daosui clarified that the coming together of conditions brings about existence, which is called conventional truth, while the dispersal of conditions brings about non-existence, which is called ultimate truth. An objection says: The sūtras say 'without destroying provisional designations, one explains the true nature.' How could it depend on analyzing and dispersing [conditions] before it is true non-existence? Non-existence only upon analyzing and dispersing is merely the non-existence of items within conventional [truth]. Next, the Qi hermit Zhou Yong composed the 'Treatise on the Three Schools' (Sanzong lun): 1. Non-emptiness of provisional designations; 2. Emptiness of provisional designations; 3. Emptiness as provisional designation. As for 'non-emptiness of provisional designations': The sūtras say: 'Matter is empty.' This means that it is empty of intrinsic nature and substantiality, and therefore it is called empty. It does not empty provisional matter. Because it is empty of intrinsic nature and substantiality, it is called empty, which is the ultimate truth; because it does not empty the provisional, it is called conventional truth. Later people called this the 'rat-in-the-chestnut' doctrine. An objection says: The treatise says: 'Because phenomena later become different, know that they are all without intrinsic nature. That which is without intrinsic nature is also non-existent, because all phenomena are empty.' Thus, both nature and non-nature are entirely empty; how could one merely empty nature without emptying the provisional? This does not differ from the aforementioned doctrine of matter-as-such. As for 'emptiness of provisional designations': All phenomena are formed by a confluence of conditions, and therefore they have substantiality, which is called conventional truth. Seeking them by dismantling the conditions, they are completely unattainable, which is called ultimate truth. Later people called this the 'two truths of the melon', where the sunken melon is the ultimate and the floating melon is the conventional. An objection says: Positing a provisional phenomenon first and then emptying it still amounts to existence through the confluence of conditions, incurring the error of non-existence only upon analyzing and dispersing. As for the third, 'emptiness as provisional designation': This is what Mr. Zhou adopted. The general meaning is: provisional designations as they are are just emptiness. Tracing Mr. Zhou's 'emptiness as provisional designation', its origin comes from Sengzhao's 'Treatise on the Emptiness of the Non-Absolute'. That treatise says: 'Although existent, it is non-existent; although non-existent, it is existent. Although existent, it is non-existent: this is what is called non-existence. Although non-existent, it is existent: this is what is called non-non-existence. As such, it is not that things are non-existent, but that things are not real things. Since things are not real things, how can they be things?' Master Sengzhao said: Because things are not real things, they are provisional things; because they are provisional things, they are empty. Master Dalang obtained this doctrine within the Pass and transmitted it to Mr. Zhou, who subsequently composed the 'Treatise on the Three Schools'. Now, examining them comprehensively: if one clings and grasps, all the aforementioned views involving attainment must be refuted. If the mind relies on nothing and has no attainment, adapting to conditions to attain awakening, all of them may be employed, so long as they tally with the sūtras and śāstras. Shi Dao'an's original non-existence, Zhi Daolin's matter-as-such, Mr. Zhou's emptiness as provisional designation, and Master Sengzhao's non-absolute emptiness: their source is indeed one, differing only in their modes of expression; these may be adopted.