中觀論疏 3.19

3.19

"[The opponent] asks: 'Although you have explained non-arising...'" This is the second section, where the author of the treatise himself explains the eight negations. Question: What is the difference between Piṅgala's explanation and that of the treatise master? Answer: The main intent is identical; briefly, there are three differences. First, Piṅgala explains all eight negations in full, whereas the treatise master explains only one negation. Second, the commentator sets forth the sequence of arising for the eight negations, whereas the treatise master directly explains them without more. Third, Piṅgala explains them successively, whereas the treatise master encompasses the beginning and comprehends the end: Chapter [1] on "Conditions" explains non-arising, explaining the beginning of the eight negations; Chapter [2] on "Going and Coming" explains non-going, interpreting the end of the eight negations. Herein, first comes the question and then the answer. The intent of the question is twofold: first, to conclude what preceded; second, to introduce what follows. For the commentator to frame this question-and-answer has three reasons in all: First, fearing that text and commentary would not be distinguished and later people would suppose that both the verse and the prose were composed by Nāgārjuna himself; to distinguish them, he framed this question. Second, the principle of non-arising is profound, and fearing he had not hit the mark, the commentator modestly deferred upward to Nāgārjuna. Third, Dharma Master Rāhula was a contemporary of Nāgārjuna and explained the eight negations in terms of the four virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity; now Piṅgala explains them based on refuting errors, and wishing to cite Nāgārjuna as confirming accord, he raised this question. It is also said: fearing that later people would not believe the commentator's words, he cites Nāgārjuna as evidence: "Although you previously refuted arising and explained non-arising, how is it necessarily the treatise master's intent?" Now showing that Nāgārjuna also makes this statement, my words are indeed trustworthy.