中觀論疏 3.20.1

3.20.1

"[Nāgārjuna] answers: 'Phenomena do not arise from themselves...'" From here downward is precisely where the treatise master himself explains the eight negations. It opens into two sections: first, Chapter [1] on "Conditions" explains the beginning of the eight negations; second, Chapter [2] on "Going and Coming" explains the end of the eight negations. Encompassing the beginning and comprehending the end, the middle can be deduced by analogy. Explaining the beginning of the eight negations has three parts: first, two verses present the four approaches to explain non-arising; from "[The opponent] asks: 'The Abhidharma...'" downward is the second part, where the outsider posits four conditions to prove that there is arising; from "Does the fruit arise from conditions..." downward is the third part, refuting the four conditions to reveal non-arising. The old divisions did not hit the mark, so I now correct them. With respect to the two verses, there are two parts: the first verse opens the chapter headings, and the second verse explains the chapter headings. The previous citation of the eight negations marks the core of the Vaipulya; these two verses express Nāgārjuna's wondrous awakening. Because Nāgārjuna examined the four lemmas of arising and found none, he awakened to non-arising; receiving neither arising nor non-arising, and further receiving neither receiving nor non-receiving, with nothing to attain and nothing to rely on, it is called the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti). Now, to express his realization for the sake of sentient beings, he formulated the four lemmas showing that arising cannot be found. Yet simply reading this text, one might not perceive its wonder: Siṃhanāda praised the Buddha with this verse, for the Buddha was able to awaken to the four kinds of non-arising, which is the Great Awakening. Moreover, these four kinds of non-arising are the mark of signlessness, called the true mark. There are two kinds of four lemmas in all: first, the four such as having no self-characteristic; second, the four such as the unconditioned self-characteristic. Although non-Buddhists refute coarse [views], they cannot eliminate subtle ones; without these four lemmas of non-arising, how could one gather the heterodox to return to the correct and reveal the true mark? Question: Previously there were eight errors, and next there were nine schools; why does the treatise master only refute the four lemmas? Answer: The eight errors do not exceed having a cause and having no cause; three lemmas refute having a cause, and one lemma refutes having no cause, thereby subsuming the eight into the four. The nine positions all posit arising with a cause; now three lemmas refute having a cause, so the three subsume the nine. Question: Who holds the four lemmas such as self-arising? Answer: The assertions made by various people mostly fall into these four. For instance, a sprout has its own substance capable of arising, hence "self-arising"; the principle capable of arising, the definition capable of arising, and the nature capable of arising are of the same pattern of meaning. Although there is a principle capable of arising, it also depends on conditions to arise, which is the meaning of "arising from another." Having a principle capable of arising and also depending on conditions is the meaning of "arising from both." Investigating this arising, its remote origin is avidyā, and avidyā is without cause, which is the meaning of "arising without cause." Since arising possesses the four lemmas, cessation is likewise. If there is a principle capable of cessation so that cessation occurs, this is the meaning of "self-cessation." If it depends on the path of cultivation to cease, this is the meaning of "cessation through another." Having what can cease and also depending on the path of cultivation is called "cessation through both." Having never ceased before and only beginning to cease now due to conditions is the meaning of "cessation without cause." Question: Why does he not refute oneness and difference, or existence and non-existence, but instead refutes self, other, and both? Answer: There are three reasons. First, a subsequent verse states: 'Whatever phenomenon is born of causes and conditions, / That I declare to be emptiness; / It is also provisional designation, / And also the meaning of the middle way.' When the outsider clings to intrinsic nature, he completely forfeits causes and conditions, the middle, and the provisional; if he forfeits causes and conditions, the middle, and the provisional, then all phenomena are destroyed. Therefore, at the very beginning, refuting 'self' allows one to recognize causes and conditions; recognizing causes and conditions is precisely the middle and the provisional, up to having Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and worldly instruments of joy. Second, refuting 'self' encompasses everything, for among all phenomena none goes beyond self: pointing to self constitutes other, and when self is absent, other is absent. Third, he wishes to reveal that all phenomena are fundamentally unarisen of themselves, because all phenomena fundamentally lack their own substance; therefore all Mahāyāna sūtras explain that they are fundamentally unarisen and now also unceasing. As for why he does not refute existence, non-existence, oneness, and difference: arising from own-substance is existence; arising from other is non-existence; arising from both is both existence and non-existence. Positing oneness is self-arising; positing difference is arising from other. Now, refuting self, other, and both subsumes oneness, difference, existence, and non-existence. The eighth [school] posits arising and the ninth posits non-arising, which are still existence and non-existence, entering the approaches of self and other to be refuted. The verse has two parts: the upper three lines directly refute arising; the lower one line concludes by illuminating non-arising. The upper three lines showing non-arising is the meaning of the middle; the lower showing non-arising is the meaning of contemplation; expounding it for sentient beings is the treatise. Hearing the eight negations, the treatise master practiced in accordance with the teaching; now, this one verse is expounded in accordance with practice. Naturally, the middle generates contemplation, and contemplation generates the middle. The middle generating contemplation means that awakening to the middle way gives rise to correct contemplation. Contemplation generating the middle means that when sentient beings see phenomena as self or other, that is not the middle way; now using contemplation to investigate self and other as ultimately unobtainable is precisely contemplating the middle. Furthermore, the upper three lines illuminate the non-arising of phenomena, while the lower line illuminates the patient acceptance of non-arising. Furthermore, the upper three lines are the nature of the objective realm, while the next line is the nature of contemplative wisdom. The myriad meanings, such as the three kinds of prajñā, can be understood in this way. Question: How is there no self-arising? Answer: The prose below explains it itself. Since this is the beginning of Nāgārjuna's verses, it is fitting to set one's mind upon it. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in explaining the chapter on "Non-arising," says: 'Because sentient beings do not arise, phenomena do not arise. Awakening to both kinds of non-arising is called the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas.' Sentient beings not arising means that seeking them through these four approaches, they cannot be found, and therefore they do not arise. If within the five aggregates there were a substance of a sentient being, a sentient being could arise from the substance of a sentient being; because within the five aggregates there is no substance of a sentient being, how could a sentient being arise from the substance of a sentient being? Furthermore, if a sentient being arose from the substance of a sentient being, then the sentient being would not depend on the five aggregates; since they depend on the five aggregates, we know that a sentient being does not arise from the substance of a sentient being. 'Not arising from another': when deluded people hear that a sentient being does not arise from the substance of a sentient being, they say that relying on the five aggregates, a sentient being arises. The five aggregates viewed in relation to a sentient being are then 'other', which is the meaning of arising from another. Now we clarify: if within the aggregates there were a substance of a sentient being, it could regard the five aggregates as 'other'; since ultimately there is no substance of a sentient being, what could regard them as other? Therefore they do not arise from another. Furthermore, within the five aggregates there is no person, and depending on the five there comes to be one—this is gathering emptiness into existence! Furthermore, within the five there is no person, and depending on the five a person is formed; within the five there is no pillar, why does it not form a pillar? Furthermore, within the five there is not one that can produce one, nor are there many—why does it not produce many? Furthermore, in five dogs there is no lion—why does it not produce one? 'Not arising from both': when deluded people hear that seeking a sentient being through the preceding two gates fails, they say that within the aggregates there is originally the intrinsic nature of a sentient being, which also depends on the five aggregates to be accomplished, and therefore it is arising from both. Now we clarify: if it were arising from both, it would combine two faults: first, the fault of a sentient being arising from the substance of a sentient being; second, the fault of existence and non-existence, of self and other. Therefore they do not arise from both.