中觀論疏 2.31

2.31

Tenth, the master said: "To set forth these eight negations is to subsume everything that the minds of all people who possess apprehension—Great [Vehicle] or Small, internal or external—put into practice, and everything their mouths express; all of it falls within these eight matters. Now, refuting these eight matters is precisely refuting all people who possess apprehension—Great or Small, internal or external; therefore, the eight negations are elucidated. Why is this? Whenever any person who possesses apprehension gives rise to a thought or stirs a notion, that is 'arising'; desiring to extinguish defilements is 'cessation'; regarding one's own body as impermanent is 'annihilation'; holding that there is an eternal abiding to be sought is 'permanence'; taking the ultimate truth as formless is 'unity'; taking the myriad forms of conventional truth as differing is 'diversity'; streaming forth from ignorance is 'coming'; and returning to the root and original source by departing is 'going out'. As soon as a single thought arises, it is endowed with these eight inversions. Now, contemplating these one by one throughout the mind as having no source makes all minds that possess apprehension ultimately pure; therefore it is said, 'neither arising nor ceasing' and so forth, up to 'neither coming nor going out.'" The master frequently maintained this purport. Why is this? Because before the Three Treatises appeared, those who practiced Abhidharma or the *Tattvasiddhi*, those of the Mahāyāna who possessed apprehension, and dhyāna masters and vinaya masters who practiced the path with ascetic discipline—such people all possessed apprehension regarding arising and ceasing, annihilation and permanence, which obstructed the correct contemplation of the middle way. Obstructing the correct contemplation of the middle way also obstructed the boundless great function of provisionally designated causes and conditions. Therefore, by refuting and washing away [these errors] completely and without remainder, one awakens to the true nature of reality. Once one has awakened to the substance of the true nature of reality, one understands the boundless great function of provisionally designated causes and conditions. Question: If you construct these ten items in this way, is that not establishing a thesis? The master said: In the Three Treatises there is no thesis; how could one establish another? Answer: The Three Treatises have both refutation and elucidation: in refutation, no statement is left unexhausted; in elucidation, no meaning is left unprovided. One should not ask such a question. Furthermore, as for setting forth the ten items: formerly people said that the eight negations merely discard characteristics and clarify emptiness, but what meaning could they have after all? Now, to address this, [we show that] although the eight negations are brief in words, there is no meaning that is not complete within them—how could they merely be empty? Furthermore, setting forth the ten items is done so that by attaining a single correct contemplation, one thoroughly awakens to all Buddha-dharmas. Thus, when Śākyamuni saw Dīpaṅkara Buddha at the crossroads in the city of Puṣpapura and awakened to a single non-arising, he was fully endowed with all Buddha-dharmas. How much more so when one comprehends the eight matters—would he not be fully endowed with all dharmas? However, when explaining the eight negations with these ten items, one must apply each of them to one's own mind. For example, when refuting the two kinds of arising—provisional and real—one must first inspect one's own mind: if one sees this body and mind as having real arising and real ceasing, that is the illness of 'reality'; seeking it without finding its source, one's own illness of 'reality' is cured. If one explains this for others, one likewise examines for them that the illness of 'reality' has no source, and their illness of 'reality' is also cured. If in one's own mind, hearing causes and conditions explained, one immediately forms an understanding of causes and conditions as provisional, that becomes the illness of 'causes and conditions'; by examining that provisional arising has no trace or location, the illness of 'provisionality' is cured. Explaining it for others is also like this. Such a person benefits both self and others in thought-moment after thought-moment. The *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* says: "Just as overcoming enemies can be called valour, so one who also removes old age, sickness, and death is called a bodhisattva." Furthermore, if this person awakens like this for himself, it is called noble silence; if he likewise explains it for sentient beings, it is called noble teaching of the Dharma. Therefore, between speaking and remaining silent, he always accords with the Buddha's teaching and is protected and held in mindful regard by all Buddhas. When in thought-moment after thought-moment body and mind come to abide in non-arising, it is called 'abiding'. Redirecting all inverted minds of the provisional and real toward the true nature of reality is called 'dedication'. When this mind is attained and cannot be shaken, it is called the 'ground'. Therefore, one must constantly watch the mind. One who makes such an explanation does not contradict the Buddhas of the three times, and is a true disciple of Nāgārjuna. Question: If one is constantly to watch one's own mind, why did the Great Master reprimand the non-Buddhists, dismantle the Abhidharma, dismiss the *Tattvasiddhi*, and rebuke the Mahāyāna? Answer: If in one's own mind non-Buddhist views arise and one falls into non-Buddhist ways, that is called 'non-Buddhist'. Up to, if in one's own mind Mahāyāna views arise, that is called 'attachment to the Mahāyāna'. Therefore, universally rebuking everyone is universally rebuking one's own mind. Furthermore, the Great Master said: "One's own mind has no reliance." Now, rebuking all people who possess apprehension is speech adapted to the minds of others. If one has one's own illness and lacks the power of contemplation yet rebukes others, that is rebuking both self and others; it is speech according to one's own intent, and also speech adapted to the minds of others. Question: You should merely explain the eight negations; why do you universally rebuke both self and others? Answer: Because universally refuting self and others so that the mind that possesses apprehension ultimately does not arise is precisely explaining the eight negations. Why is this? The treatise-master saw that those who study the Buddha's teachings cling to words and names and thereby lose non-arising. Now, if upon hearing the eight negations of non-arising they again form theoretical understandings, then the eight negations in turn become an illness, and such people cannot be transformed. Why is this? Because if one examines the sūtras and forms understandings of apprehension, the Buddha cannot transform him; if one studies the treatises and again gives rise to a mind of reliance and attachment, the bodhisattvas cannot transform him. If a person cannot be transformed by either sūtras or treatises, by either the Buddha or the bodhisattvas, one knows that this person has dull faculties and heavy transgressions. Both sūtras and treatises, the Buddha and the bodhisattvas, are for that person nothing but poison. Therefore, the mind must always have nothing upon which to rely, which is precisely awakening to the eight negations. Question: How does the mind have something upon which to rely? Answer: The mind is like an inchworm, abandoning one thing to grasp another; it is utterly incapable of having nothing upon which to rely. Thus, abandoning non-Buddhist views it clings to the Small Vehicle; abandoning the Small Vehicle it clings to the Great Vehicle; abandoning arising it turns around and abides in non-arising. Therefore, having anywhere to abide or cling to is not the intent of the eight negations. Question: There are two kinds of people: the first awakens to the Mahāyāna intent of non-apprehension, but does not understand the nominal teachings of Abhidharma and treatises; the second thoroughly understands all nominal teachings, but does not train in the Mahāyāna intent of non-apprehension. Between these two people, which is superior? Answer: People of ordinary hearing and sight would say that the one who understands all nominal teachings is superior. Now, discussing it from the standpoint of principle, although both are at fault, the former is superior. How is this known? Although the Buddha spoke all nominal teachings, his intention lay in the single characteristic and single flavour of non-apprehension—namely, the characteristic of detachment from characteristics, the characteristic of liberation. Question: When propagating the sūtras and explaining the treatises, one must structure the text, explain the meanings, show how they arise in sequence, critically examine agreements and contradictions, and synthesize differences and similarities; why do you single-mindedly practice the contemplation of non-apprehension? Answer: When we examine why the sagely person appeared in the world, everything he set forth was done to reveal the middle way, causing [beings] to generate contemplation within the causal stage and eliminate all defilements. If one preserves and clings to words, one harms the Buddha's intent. Furthermore, a lifespan of a hundred years is no longer than the morning dew; one ought to take preserving the path as urgent. Yet to treat as urgent what is secondary, and treat as secondary what is urgent—is that not to mislead oneself for an entire lifetime?