中觀論疏 3.15

3.15

From "Although some, having heard the fourfold refutation of all phenomena" below, [the commentary] explains the third pair: neither identity nor difference. Question: For what reason does Piṅgala explain them in four pairs? Answer: Examining Piṅgala's intention, he initially refutes the thesis-masters' [notion of] arising to clarify non-arising, showing that non-arising refutes all phenomena completely. Yet subsequently he further sets forth three pairs of phenomena for the sake of trainees of three different faculties—superior, middling, and inferior: those of superior faculties, hearing of neither arising nor ceasing, do not awaken to non-arising, but upon hearing of neither annihilation nor permanence they finally awaken to non-arising; those of middling faculties, hearing of neither annihilation nor permanence, do not awaken to non-arising, but upon hearing of neither identity nor difference they finally awaken to non-arising; those of inferior faculties, hearing of all six kinds, do not awaken at all, but upon hearing that all phenomena fundamentally have no coming and no going out they finally awaken to non-arising. Therefore we know that the first pair directly reveals non-arising; refuting errors is already comprehensive, and manifesting the Way is fully accomplished, but only for the sake of persons of three faculties are the remaining six negations stated. Regarding the first passage, there are two parts: "Although some, having heard the fourfold refutation of phenomena" recapitulates the prior refutation; "they still establish all phenomena by means of the four gates" establishes the subsequent position. This clarifies that, refusing to accept the prior fourfold refutation, they establish the subsequent four phenomena. "This too is not so" is the treatise master's second part, replying. Furthermore, four phrases are unfolded: First is the general negation. There are overall two meanings: First, to clarify that although they now establish the latter four, they have already leaked into the prior four gates, and therefore should not be established. Second, since the prior four are false, it is verified that the latter four are likewise not real. "If they were identical, there would be no condition; if they were different, there would be no continuation" is the second part, a brief refutation. It explains the preceding general negation. If cause and effect were identical, then the effect would not exist owing to the cause, nor would the cause exist owing to the effect. "Condition" (yuán) means the sense of causal reason (yuányóu). Furthermore, since cause and effect would be identical, there would only be the effect with no distinct cause; hence it says, "if they were identical, there would be no condition." "Condition" is just "cause." As for "if different, there would be no continuation": if the sprout is different from the grain seed yet the sprout continues the grain, then the sprout is also different from a tree and should likewise continue the tree. Furthermore, if cause and effect were different, then at the time of the cause there would not yet be an effect, so there would be that which is continued, but no continuer. When the effect exists, the cause exists no more, so there would be a continuer, but nothing that is continued. However, just as with difference there is no continuation, with identity there is likewise no continuation; just as with identity there is no condition, with difference there is likewise no condition. If the grain is different from the sprout, how could it be the condition for the sprout? If it were, since a tree is different from the sprout, it should also be the condition for the sprout. The Tattvasiddhi masters say: "Provisional existence is identical to the real; there is also [the sense that it] is different from the real." Now I ask: Do the four subtle particles constitute a pillar that is identical to the real, or do they constitute a pillar that is different from the real? If they constitute a pillar that is identical to the real, it is just the real; what cause and effect mutually constituting each other is there? If they constitute a pillar that is different from the real, the real and the pillar are separate from each other; how could they mutually constitute each other? "[This] will be refuted in various ways later" is the third part, pointing to later chapters. Refutations of identity and difference are found everywhere in the text; refutations of continuation appear in the Chapters on Action (Karma) and on the Already-Per-formed. "Therefore, it is further said: neither identity nor difference" is the fourth part, the general conclusion.