中觀論疏 3.13

3.13

Regarding "Some do not accept non-arising and non-perishing": this is the second [part], explaining the meaning of "to establish". The author of the treatise refuted the arising and perishing of phenomena to clarify non-arising and non-perishing; outsiders, hearing this, are unwilling to accept it. The author of the treatise refuted the annihilation and permanence of phenomena to clarify non-annihilation and non-permanence; outsiders, hearing this, then give rise to faith. To establish this person's faith in non-arising, he therefore speaks of the six. Why is this? They think phenomena involve causes perishing and effects arising; hearing non-arising and non-perishing spoken, it destroys their cause and effect, leading to the wrong view of an icchantika, hence they do not accept it. If they hear that because causes perish there is non-permanence, and because effects continue there is non-annihilation, cause and effect are not lost, and therefore they give rise to faith. This person believes non-arising and non-perishing are different from non-annihilation and non-permanence, and therefore forms this imputation. Question: What kind of person forms this imputation? Answer: There are two kinds of people who form this imputation: First, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, down to the Nirgrantha, who establish the meaning of cause and effect; hearing non-arising and non-perishing spoken, they think there are no longer causes and effects, hence they do not accept it. If one says that cause and effect continue in succession without annihilation and without permanence, then cause and effect are not lost, so they give rise to faith. Second, it is precisely the nine kinds of treatise masters above and the meanings of the five hundred schools; the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "When the five hundred schools hear of ultimate emptiness, it is like a sword piercing their hearts." Ultimate emptiness is precisely non-arising and non-perishing, hence they do not accept it. If they hear of cause and effect as non-permanent and non-annihilated, they therefore give rise to faith. All those who attained the emptiness of sentient beings but did not attain the emptiness of phenomena formed this attachment. Master Tanying, relating Kumārajīva's words, also made this explanation. He said, "Under non-arising there is no phenomenon to rely upon; under non-permanence the substance of phenomena still remains. Hence accepting non-arising is difficult, but believing non-permanence is easy." One must only provide this one explanation. If there are other interpretations, they do not follow the meaning of the text, but are merely human opinions speculating and deducing on their own. Regarding "If one deeply investigates, non-permanence and non-annihilation are precisely non-arising and non-perishing": the preceding clause brings out the outsider's assumption of difference. You think non-arising and non-perishing are different from non-permanence and non-annihilation, and therefore believe the one and do not believe the other. Now, non-permanence is precisely non-arising; since you believe non-permanence, you ought to believe non-arising; if you do not believe non-arising, neither do you believe non-permanence. There are three parts: first, stating the identity; second, explaining the identity; third, concluding the identity. Why say "deeply investigates"? It clarifies that the reason the outsider thinks they are different is that he does not deeply investigate; if he deeply investigates them, he will know they are not different. Regarding "Why? If a phenomenon were real, it should not be non-existent": next is explaining the identity. This explanation intends to clarify that what is negated does not differ, so what negates has no distinction. The initial phrase matches perishing with annihilation. If a phenomenon were real, it could not be made non-existent; but if it was previously existent and subsequently non-existent, one should know this is annihilation. Previously existent and now non-existent is annihilation; previously existent and now non-existent is perishing. If annihilation is perishing, one should know non-annihilation is precisely non-perishing. Regarding "If it previously had intrinsic nature": this matches arising with permanence. If it previously had a nature of arising, one should know this arising is precisely permanence; hence we know non-permanence is precisely non-arising. Here, "substance" is taken as "nature"; as it says below, "intrinsic nature is precisely intrinsic substance".