中觀論疏 2.7

2.7

The third [section] is the gate of gain and loss. Question: Are the eight negations solely the source of gain for the multitude of noble ones, or are they also the root of loss for the multitude of sentient beings? Answer: Through awakening to the unproduced, there are the noble ones of the three vehicles; through being deluded about the eight negations, there is the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "There is a medicine of a single taste, which comes to have six tastes according to the places into which it flows." The medicine of a single taste is the middle way Buddha-nature. The middle way Buddha-nature is neither produced nor destroyed, neither permanent nor annihilated, which is precisely the eight negations. Therefore, we know that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Question: Why is it that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies? Answer: Because failing to awaken to the eight negations means one does not recognise the two truths; not recognising the two truths means the two wisdoms do not arise; the two wisdoms not arising means there are the afflictions of craving and views; on account of afflictions there is karma; on account of karma there are birth, aging, illness, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, and distress. Therefore, we know that losing the eight negations results in the turbulent proliferation of the six destinies. Question: In all, how many types of persons are there who gain or lose the eight negations? Answer: For now, drawing upon two divisions, each has four types. As for the four types of persons who lose: First, sentient beings of dull faculties who give rise to craving. Second, non-Buddhists of sharp faculties who give rise to views. Third, those very sentient beings of craving and views who redirect their minds to study the Buddha's Hīnayāna teachings, but possessing scant merit and dull faculties, they subsequently incur three losses: (1) gaining the words but missing the intent: hearing the terminology of Hīnayāna preached, they are said to gain the words; yet not understanding that preaching the small points to the great, they hold fast to the pointing finger and forget the moon, hence this is called missing the intent; (2) losing both words and intent: as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa scolds Kātyāyana, "These words were not spoken in the Mahāyāna, nor are they contained in the Tripiṭaka; these commentators have simply fabricated this discourse themselves"; (3) obstinately clinging to the Hīnayāna and subsequently disparaging the Vaipulya: like the five hundred sects, who cling to phenomena as having determinate characteristics, unaware that the Buddha's intent was liberation; thus hearing of ultimate emptiness is like a knife wounding their hearts. Fourth, these very Hīnayāna persons who redirect their minds to study the Mahāyāna also incur three losses: (1) gaining the words but missing the intent: hearing "great" preached, they form a conception of greatness and end up with an attained greatness; unaware that it is a provisional designation through causes and conditions, where "small" and "great" are used to express neither-great-nor-small, this is called a loss; (2) losing both words and intent: raising all sorts of dialectical refutations within the Mahāyāna that are neither the meaning of the Tripiṭaka nor contained in the Vaipulya; (3) obstinately clinging to the Mahāyāna and subsequently repudiating the small: as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, explaining the "Medicinal Herbs" chapter, refutes the error of bodhisattvas, for when bodhisattvas heard that in principle there is only the One and no two vehicles, they subsequently repudiated the small; yet though sprouted from a single earth and moistened by a single rain, the various grasses and trees each have their distinctions; while in principle there is only the great, this does not hinder becoming the small according to conditions; but bodhisattvas subsequently repudiated the small, preserving the real and abandoning the expedient, hence this is called a loss. These four types of persons all fail to awaken to the middle way of the eight negations and do not give rise to right contemplation, thereby incurring these four kinds of loss. Although there are four losses, they combine into three delusions: The first loss involves the illness of perversion, unaware that it is an illness and unaware of any remedy. The next loss involves knowing it to be an illness and seeking a remedy, but taking false medicine, so that not only is the old illness not cured, new illness is further added. The latter two losses involve knowing it to be an illness and seeking a remedy, but lacking expedient means, so that taking the ambrosia turns it into poison, and likewise the old illness is not cured while a new illness further arises. Although there are four losses, they combine into two faults: the first two losses give rise to delusion on their own, while the latter two losses incur illness from studying the teachings. As for the difference between the first two persons: the former has dull faculties and gives rise to craving; the latter has sharp faculties and gives rise to views. Furthermore, the former person has only a single loss, while the latter person further gives rise to losses within loss. Why is this so? Having this body and mind is already called a loss, and further dialectically categorising them into ninety-six kinds of differences makes them stray ever farther from the city and take ever more diverging paths. Hence the Lotus Sūtra compares these two persons to venomous insects and vicious ghosts. Question: The eight negations are fully endowed with the two truths. If Hīnayāna persons know that phenomena arise and thereby attain conventional truth, why do you speak of loss? Answer: Conventional truth is production that is unproduced dependent origination; yet those of the Hīnayāna cling to it as production with intrinsic nature, and therefore they lose the conventional truth. If they even lose the conventional truth, how much more so the ultimate truth? Question: The followers of the Vaipulya study the Mahāyāna and illuminate that all phenomena are neither produced nor destroyed and are ultimately empty; they ought to have attained the eight negations. Why do you speak of loss? Answer: That the eight negations are unproduced is simply that production through causes and conditions is unproduced; it speaks of non-production without destroying production. Yet those of the Vaipulya cling to non-production and lose production; having lost production-as-unproduced, they also lose unproduced-as-production, thereby destroying both of the two truths. Question: For whom precisely did the Tathāgata appear in the world? And when Nāgārjuna subsequently arose, what errors did he further refute? Answer: Speaking generally, the Buddha appeared in the world precisely for all four persons. However, before the Buddha appeared in the world, there were only the first two persons; to refute these two persons, he preached the teaching of the five vehicles. Among these two persons, for those devoid of hearing and practicing unwholesome paths, he brought them to maturity through the wholesome roots of humans and devas; for those with the faculties for the three vehicles, he preached the teachings of the three vehicles. Although Nāgārjuna's appearance in the world was generally for all four persons, this treatise is directly intended for persons of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; hence it elucidates both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings, while treating the first two persons secondarily. Moreover, although the Buddha preached the teachings of the five vehicles, his intent lay in the one great causal condition; and although the four reliances elucidated both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna teachings, their intent returns to the single ultimate, leading beings to awaken to the middle way and give rise to right contemplation. Next, to clarify the four persons of gain: as previously explained, there are four kinds of persons who contemplate the middle way. The middle way is precisely the meaning of the eight negations as neither produced nor destroyed: contemplating with lower wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a śrāvaka; contemplating with middling wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a pratyekabuddha; contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a bodhisattva; contemplating with supreme wisdom, one attains the bodhi of a Buddha. Bodhi is called wisdom; it means giving rise to contemplation while in the causal stage, thus constituting the four persons. This treatise combines the four persons into two: the first twenty-five chapters cause contemplation to arise while in the causal stage, attaining the bodhi of Buddhas and bodhisattvas; the latter two chapters cause persons of the two vehicles to give rise to contemplation while in the causal stage, attaining the bodhi of the two vehicles. Therefore, a later chapter says: "Previously having heard the Mahāyāna teachings, one enters the ultimate truth; now one wishes to hear the śrāvaka teachings to enter the ultimate truth." The ultimate truth is precisely the middle way; but awakening has shallowness and depth, just like the three beasts [crossing the river], thus forming four grades. Question: If the three vehicles equally contemplate the middle way and the persons of the three vehicles equally receive the eight negations, why does the sūtra text state: "For śrāvakas he preached the production and destruction of the twelve causal conditions, while for bodhisattvas he preached the twelve as unproduced and undestroyed"? Answer: Broadly explained, there are two kinds of śrāvakas: First, those who attain the emptiness of persons but do not attain the emptiness of phenomena. Because they do not attain the emptiness of phenomena, the twelve characteristics are produced for them; knowing there is no self, they enter the ultimate truth. The great beings (bodhisattvas) fully attain both emptinesses: not only is there no self, there are also no twelve [links], and thus they enter the ultimate truth; therefore, they differ from those of the two vehicles. Second, śrāvakas fully attain both emptinesses, but for the śrāvaka, the twelve exist first, and they must disintegrate them to make them empty before entering the ultimate truth. Bodhisattvas know that the twelve are originally unproduced from the outset and are now also undestroyed, and thus enter the emptiness of the ultimate truth. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains the two emptinesses of great and small: the śrāvaka analyzes and disintegrates persons and phenomena, and thus persons and phenomena are empty; the bodhisattva knows that the intrinsic nature of persons and phenomena is inherently empty. Although there is the difference between disintegrating phenomena and intrinsic nature, they equally elucidate the entry into the meaning of emptiness. Because they equally enter the meaning of emptiness, the three vehicles equally enter the ultimate truth. Because of disintegrating phenomena versus not disintegrating phenomena, the śrāvaka is termed the contemplation of production and destruction, while the bodhisattva is termed the contemplation of non-production and non-destruction. Question: For those who equally enter emptiness, is there any difference in the meaning of emptiness or not? Answer: This is fully explained in the Profound Meaning (Xuanyi); now I will explain it briefly in a single phrase. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The two vehicles are called mere emptiness, while bodhisattvas are called unobtainable emptiness. The two vehicles simply abide in emptiness, which is called solitary emptiness; great beings know that emptiness is also empty, which is called unobtainable emptiness." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also says: "The two vehicles attaining the two emptinesses is like the emptiness within a pore; great beings attaining the two emptinesses is like the emptiness of the ten directions."