中觀論疏 3.36

3.36

The prose has three parts: first, clarifying the non-existence of the objective condition; second, resolving doubts; third, concluding the non-existence of the objective condition. The first part also has two: first, an exposition through dharma; second, an illustration through metaphor. Within the exposition through dharma, first the objective condition is clarified, and next the non-existence of the objective condition is clarified. Regarding "having form, formless": Question: Why are dharmas such as form and formless listed? Answer: Precisely this form is the objective condition; seeking this form is impossible, and therefore there is no objective condition, yet it does not lack the principle of the objective condition. Now it is simply clarified that the objective condition is precisely the non-existence of the objective condition. If there were no objective condition, how could one say that the objective condition is empty? Just saying that form is empty, how could it be that it is only empty when there is no form? If upon hearing "form" one arbitrarily places it in conventional truth, and upon hearing "emptiness" places it in ultimate truth, this would mean the empty is self-empty and the non-empty is self-non-empty, which would be the two views of annihilation and permanence. Now it is simply that what exists does not exist, yet how could there be non-existence? It simply clarifies that what is empty is not empty, yet how could there be non-emptiness? Therefore we know that emptiness and existence are non-dual, merely refuting one-sided attachments to definite existence and definite non-existence; hence it says neither existent nor non-existent. The Tattvasiddhi has fourteen kinds of form: the five sense faculties, five dust-fields, and four great elements. The Sarvāstivādins have eleven kinds of form, meaning the five sense faculties, five dust-fields, and avijñapti-rūpa. The formless refers to the mind and unconditioned dharmas, collectively termed the formless. Regarding "with shape, shapeless": that which has shape must be form, but form does not necessarily have shape. Therefore the Sarvāstivādins have three kinds of form: first, visible and resistant form, namely blue, yellow, and so on; second, invisible and resistant form, meaning the five sense faculties and so on; third, invisible and non-resistant form, meaning avijñapti-rūpa. Among the three kinds of form, the visible and resistant is that with shape, and the remainder are shapeless. Regarding "defiled (sāsrava)": the Sarvāstivādins have the fetter of grasping and the fetter of mental association, which are termed defiled; being free from these two fetters is termed "undefiled (anāsrava)." The treatise masters say the signless mind is called undefiled, and the sign-grasping mind is called defiled. Regarding "conditioned and unconditioned": that which is delimited by the three characteristics is called conditioned; that which lacks the three characteristics is called unconditioned. "Entering into the Dharma-nature, all are empty": this is second, clarifying the non-existence of the objective condition. Question: Since there is entering the Dharma-nature, there should be exiting the Dharma-nature. Answer: There are two meanings. Spoken in terms of two approaches, they are called exiting and entering: spoken in terms of the differentiated approach, it is called exiting; spoken in terms of the non-differentiated approach, it is called entering. Second, exiting and entering are clarified in terms of delusion and awakening: because of delusion it is called exiting, and because of awakening it is called entering. Because of delusion it is called exiting, yet in reality there is nowhere exited; because of awakening it is called entering, yet in reality there is nowhere entered. Thus the Avataṃsaka states: "All sentient beings enter, yet in reality there is nowhere entered." Likewise, all sentient beings exit, yet in reality there is nowhere exited. Question: Who is a person who exits the Dharma-nature? Answer: Such as the Sarvāstivādins who distinguish determinate characteristics of form and the formless—they are precisely people who exit the Dharma-nature. "Signless and non-grasping": signless means without a grasped object; non-grasping means without a grasper. From "Just as all the various streams" downward is second, the explanation by metaphor. Flowing from streams into the ocean, the ocean is the ocean of streams; emerging from the ocean into streams, streams are streams of the ocean. There is no ocean distinct from streams, and no streams distinct from the ocean. If there were an ocean distinct from streams, the ocean would not be the ocean of streams; if there were streams distinct from the ocean, the streams would not be streams of the ocean. From "The real Dharma is trustworthy" downward is second, resolving doubts. The doubt is: that there is an objective condition was taught by the Buddha, and that there is no objective condition was also taught by the Buddha—why use non-existence to refute existence? Therefore it explains: the absence of the objective condition is the real teaching, while the presence of the objective condition is an adapted teaching suited to capacity; therefore non-existence is used to refute existence. Question: Why clarify expedient and real in connection with this verse? Answer: This verse has two meanings: first, citing the correct to refute the heterodox; second, presenting the real to reveal the expedient. Since the verse says "the real and subtle Dharma," one knows that there are expedient teachings suited to capacity. From "Therefore there is no objective condition" downward is third, concluding the refutation.