中觀論疏 3.17

3.17

From "Furthermore, the ten thousand things are unarisen" below is the second round explaining the eight negations. Its occurrence is as before. Question: On what authority does Piṅgala explain them in two rounds? Answer: Piṅgala saw that in the "Chapter on Conditions" the treatise master explained the eight negations in one round in terms of principle, and in the "Chapter on Going and Coming" he explained the eight negations in one round in terms of phenomena; now, mirroring this intention, he also produces two rounds. The different meanings of the two rounds have been fully discussed above; now they are briefly stated again. The prior round explained them with reference to persons; this round explains them by revealing phenomena. That the prior round was for persons means that the single phrase "non-arising" already comprehensively refuted errors and sufficiently revealed the Way, but because persons' acceptance and awakening were not comprehensive, it was necessary to state the eight negations in full. That this round reveals phenomena means that it directly reveals that the ten thousand phenomena are without arising, without ceasing, and so forth. Explaining the eight negations comprises eight [sections]. The first has two parts: first, a general indication and general explanation; second, distinct indications and distinct explanations. "The ten thousand things are unarisen" is the general indication. Question: Why proclaim that the ten thousand things are unarisen? Answer: Those who receive the teachings establish the meaning of non-arising erroneously; now, wishing to make non-arising comprehensive and correct, he therefore proclaims that the ten thousand things are unarisen. Question: Who is in error? Answer: Five doctrines. First, the Hīnayāna does not attain the emptiness of phenomena, asserting that the unconditioned is unarisen while the conditioned is arisen. Furthermore, Hīnayāna adherents posit that conditioned and unconditioned are different. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "In the Śrāvaka teachings it is not said that saṃsāra is just nirvāṇa; it is only said in the Mahāyāna." This is precisely it. Now, refuting this error, we say that conditioned and unconditioned are all unarisen. Second, formerly there was the doctrine of the non-empty provisional, asserting that intrinsic, real phenomena are empty and therefore unarisen, whereas the provisional of causes and conditions is not empty and therefore has arising. Now, refuting this error, both intrinsic nature and the provisional are entirely unarisen. Third is the treatise on the non-existence of mind, which asserts that mental phenomena are unarisen, while external ten thousand things have arising. Now, refuting this error, we say that the ten thousand things are unarisen. The first round discerned non-arising with reference to persons, which could allow for mind being unarisen; now, clarifying that external things are unarisen, we know that both mind and object—all things—are unarisen. Fourth is the doctrine of empty provisional designations, which asserts that the two truths have different essences: conventional truth has arising as its essence, while ultimate truth has non-arising as its essence; they are merely not separate, and therefore are called identical. Now, addressing this error, we say that all things are themselves non-arising, not that the ultimate is unarisen. Fifth, those who take ultimate and conventional to be of one essence end up giving rise to two views: hearing of arising, they place it within the three provisionals of conventional truth; hearing of non-arising, they enter into the four terminations of ultimate truth. Now we obliterate their two views: hearing of arising, one must immediately know non-arising; hearing of non-arising, one must immediately know apparent arising. Therefore Master Sengzhao said: "Is the Way far away? Touch things and it is true. Is the sage far away? Embody him and you are spiritual." From "Why?" below is the second part, the general explanation of non-arising. As for citing "manifestly seen in the world": the indication of the ten thousand things above cited the object; the present explanation cites wisdom. There are altogether three meanings: First, words of non-arising are difficult to believe, so citing the manifest explains it, causing them to understand easily. However, when the treatise master sees non-arising, this is manifestly seeing that what is arisen is unarisen; having seen that the arisen is unarisen, he immediately sees that the unarisen is arisen. Seeing that the arisen is unarisen is expedient prajñā; seeing that the unarisen is arisen is the expedient of prajñā. Non-Buddhists do not see that the arisen is unarisen, nor do they see that the unarisen is arisen; thus they lack the two wisdoms. Second, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Debaters with sharp wisdom and clever words can make what exists into nothing, and make what is nothing into existence." Fearing that Nāgārjuna would be assimilated to them as actually holding that there is arising while asserting non-arising, therefore he now clarifies that non-arising is manifestly seen, not empty talk. Third, those who receive the teachings, upon hearing of non-arising, gaze at the cliff and do not practice; therefore citing immediate worldly matters as being just non-arising makes them accept it with faith as easy to practice and carry out. Hence it says that what is seen before one's eyes is all unarisen; you should examine it attentively. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "Bodhi is easily attained, because all phenomena are unarisen, bodhi is attained." Question: Is it through the eye of prajñā that one sees non-arising, or is it through the worldly, inverted eye that one sees non-arising? Answer: In explaining these words, from beginning to end there are five turns. First, tentatively opening two paths: first, through the eye of worldly prajñā one sees that the ten thousand things are unarisen; through the inverted worldly eye one naturally sees the grain arise. Thus, with wisdom of neither arising nor ceasing one illuminates the object that is neither arising nor ceasing; with wisdom of arising and ceasing one illuminates the object of arising and ceasing. The wisdom of neither arising nor ceasing does not see the object of arising and ceasing; the wisdom of arising and ceasing does not see the object of neither arising nor ceasing. Therefore the old saying of the masters says: "The sage sees what ordinary people do not see, and does not see what ordinary people see. Ordinary people see what the sage does not see, and do not see what the sage sees." In the meaning of the second turn: those who receive the teachings, hearing these words, then give rise to two views. Therefore we now clarify that prajñā and the worldly are by no means two: if one sees that the worldly is unarisen, it is named prajñā; if one sees that prajñā arises, it is then named worldly. Thus prajñā and the worldly are by no means two. In the meaning of the third turn: those who receive the teachings, hearing what was just said, then form a single interpretation identical to non-Buddhists, like one person being both father and son; it is also identical to the doctrine of the Dilun masters, like a single house: if grasped with a mind possessing marks, it becomes a house of false conceptualization; if grasped with a markless mind, it is an ultimately empty house. Therefore, now addressing this error, we clarify that the ten thousand things have never been prajñā or inverted; how have they ever been arisen or unarisen? In terms of full awakening it is called unarisen; for the unawakened it is designated as arisen. Non-Buddhists have one person viewed from two perspectives becoming father and son; the Dilun has one thing viewed in two ways becoming true and false. We do not agree with such assertions now. In the meaning of the fourth turn: those who receive the teachings then claim that if prajñā and the worldly are formed in terms of awakening and non-awakening, if so, in the end there must be a single thing that can follow two natures. Now, addressing this error, we therefore clarify that there has never been a thing or a non-thing; to those who view it as a thing it is a thing, and to those who view it as a non-thing it is a non-thing. In the meaning of the fifth turn: the object being so, it is likewise so in the mind—never mind, never non-mind; to those who view it as mind it is mind, and to those who view it as non-mind it is non-mind. Therefore Master Sengzhao said: "Mind arises from having mind; forms emerge from having form." Sengzhao also said: "The sage thoroughly penetrates all phenomena as having no number externally and no mind internally; when that is already tranquil and vast impartiality prevails, this is called nirvāṇa." Question: Where in the sūtras is there the phrase "seen by the worldly eye" that Piṅgala cites? Answer: The Avataṃsaka speaks of the chapter on "The Pure Eye of the World"; that is the matter.