中觀論疏 3.38

3.38

The prose has three parts: first, explaining the gāthā; second, concluding that there is no predominant condition; third, explaining the Buddha's intent in establishing the four conditions. The first part also has three: first, citing the second half; from "Why?" onward, explaining and refuting it with the first half; from "Because the characterized being does not exist" onward, returning to the second half to reproach it. "Therefore there is no predominant condition" is the second, the conclusion. Question: Why is the absence of the predominant condition explained in terms of the twelve [links of dependent origination]? Answer: Detailed analysis of the mutual origination of the twelve shows that it actually possesses all four conditions. Speaking broadly for the moment, the mutual origination of the twelve is precisely the predominant condition; therefore the predominant condition is refuted in terms of the twelve. Moreover, this treatise's refutation of the four conditions is intended to reveal the non-arising of the twelve. Since the above has refuted three of the conditions among the twelve, it now refutes the predominant condition among the twelve. "The Buddha spoke according to ordinary beings' differentiation of existence and non-existence": this explains the intent of refuting and establishing. If the treatise master refutes it, the sūtras should not state that it exists; if the sūtras state that it exists and yet it must be refuted, this would be refuting the sūtras. Therefore it is now made clear that according to the principle it does not exist, but is only spoken of as existing according to ordinary beings' differentiation. The Buddha's speech about existence and non-existence illuminates non-duality; you merely see duality, and so you are a foolish person. The treatise master thoroughly comprehends non-duality and is called a wise person. You see the duality of conditions and causes, agent and object, and do not believe in non-duality—this is refuting the sūtras. The treatise master knows that the Buddha's intent in speaking of duality was to lead to the realization of non-duality; this is elucidating the sūtras. Question: What is meant here by "differentiating existence and non-existence"? Answer: If taken generally regarding the four conditions, they encompass the substances of the conditioned and unconditioned, and so are called existence and non-existence. If taken specifically regarding the predominant condition to explain existence and non-existence: "existence" is the aforementioned "because this exists, that exists"; "non-existence" is "because this does not exist, that does not exist." It is simply following ordinary beings' differentiation of the twelve as existing or not existing. The twelve originally do not arise, hence they are not existent; now they also do not cease, hence they are not non-existent. "In the conditions, whether brief or extensive": this third gāthā concludes the refutation. The first half concludes, and the second half reproaches. Piṅgala's view takes the previous three gāthās as a general refutation that is "brief," and the subsequent four gāthās as specific refutations that are "extensive." The ancient Sanlun masters did not use Piṅgala's commentary; rather, four gāthās refute the cause-condition and three gāthās refute the [other] three conditions, these seven gāthās refuting the four conditions being called "extensive"; the four gāthās below concluding the refutation of the four conditions are called "brief." Master Kumārajīva said: "Gathering fingers without a fist is 'brief'; dispersing fingers which are also non-existent is 'extensive.'" Master Daolang of Hexi took the refutation of the four conditions as "brief," and the refutation of the six causes as "extensive." Tanying said: "Refuting the four conditions collectively producing phenomena is 'brief'; the four conditions each separately producing phenomena is 'extensive.'" According to the Abhidharma, mental phenomena arise fully from the four conditions; physical phenomena arise from two conditions, excluding the objective condition and the contiguous [condition]; phenomena that are neither physical nor mental fall into two categories: the non-conceptual absorption and the absorption of cessation arise from three conditions, excluding the objective condition; the remaining non-physical associated formations are as explained for physical phenomena. The second half reproaches, saying "If it does not exist in the causes and conditions": this means that seeking the effect within the four conditions cannot be found, which is called "non-existence"; it is not the non-existence of the effect in the cause. Now, provisionally following Piṅgala's intent to conclude the general and specific refutations above, it brings forth the intent of the subsequent decisive refutation through non-conditions below. Because seeking the effect within conditions, whether extensively or briefly, cannot be found, one should know there is no effect within conditions. Since there is no effect within conditions, there is also none in non-conditions. If it does not exist in both, then both should not produce the effect; hence the concluding refutation. Furthermore, the reason for concluding the extensive and brief is to give rise to the reproach in the second half. Although refuted above, they were not yet reproached; whoever wishes to reproach must first present their fault before being able to reproach it. Hence the first half presents the fault, and the second half reproaches the fault. Moreover, as for there being extensive and brief, looking at the intent of the *Dvādaśamukha-śāstra*, the general and specific refutations above are all "extensive," while the present "brief and extensive" is "brief"; this is because the above general and specific are subsumed into the present brief and extensive, and the present brief and extensive constitute the above general and specific.