中觀論疏 3.39

3.39

From "If one says conditions have no effect" downward: from the beginning up to here was the first part, concluding the refutation of the four conditions producing effects; now the second part adduces non-conditions to settle it. Question: Why adduce non-conditions to settle it? Answer: There are four intentions. First, to illuminate the meaning of neither existence nor non-existence. Seeking the effect within the four conditions cannot be found, so it cannot be called existent; nor does it emerge from non-conditions, so the effect cannot be non-existent. This refutes the two views of existence and non-existence and reveals the middle way. Second, to cut off the mind clinging to production. Although production from the four conditions has been refuted, the mind ultimately thinks that the effect is produced from the four conditions. Because this thought does not depart, non-conditions are adduced to settle it, causing the thought calculating production to be exhausted once and for all. Third, to prevent the opponent from giving rise to wrong views. Hearing that seeking the production of an effect from the four conditions cannot be found, they would then claim that non-four-conditions can produce the effect; therefore it is now shown that non-conditions also do not produce. Fourth, to cause the opponent to realize the non-duality of conditions and non-conditions; hence production from both conditions and non-conditions is refuted. The first half conveys the sense, meaning: although sought extensively and briefly, there is no effect within the four conditions, yet the effect ultimately arises from the four conditions. If the effect does not arise from the four conditions, apart from the four conditions there are no further phenomena—whence would it arise? Moreover, the eye sees the effect emerge from within the four conditions, and therefore the four conditions must certainly produce the effect. Furthermore, conditions and non-conditions are ultimately different; since non-conditions do not produce, conditions should produce. The second half adduces non-conditions to settle it: there is no effect in the four conditions, and there is also none in non-conditions, so they should equally produce; if not, they should equally not produce. If both are equally non-existent yet conditions produce while non-conditions do not produce, then non-conditions should also produce while the four conditions do not produce. Question: Where are these non-conditions adduced from to settle it? Answer: From the beginning up to the "brief and extensive" gāthā, the first three lines of the opponent's gāthā establishing the four conditions have been refuted; now this single gāthā refutes the opponent's having no further fifth condition. They consider the primordial nature (prakṛti) and so on to be a fifth condition, and therefore there is no effect in non-conditions. Thus non-conditions are now adduced to settle it, making them realize that conditions and non-conditions entirely do not produce. Moreover, pressing them that their four conditions produce what turns out to be non-conditions, these non-conditions also do not produce an effect. Furthermore, within the four conditions themselves, conditions and non-conditions are mutually discussed. "If the effect arises from conditions": this is the third concluding refutation within the four conditions. It is divided into two parts: first, a verse and a half concluding that there is no produced effect; next, half a gāthā concluding that there are no producing conditions or non-conditions. The verse and a half has two parts: first, five lines concluding the refutation that the effect does not arise from conditions; next, one line concluding the refutation that the effect does not arise from non-conditions. The five lines have two parts: first, four lines setting forth that the effect does not arise from conditions; next, one line concluding that the effect does not arise from conditions. The first four lines form three approaches: the first line sets forth what is refuted; the second line sets forth what refutes; the second half sets forth the reproach. "If the effect arises from conditions" refers to the above four conditions producing all phenomena; the effect is what is produced, and the conditions are what produces, generally citing all agents and objects. "These conditions have no intrinsic nature" sets forth what refutes. They calculate that conditions have an intrinsic nature of producing effects, and effects have an intrinsic nature of coming from conditions. The two approaches above, general and specific, seek in conditions no nature of being able to produce, and seek in effects no nature of being produced; hence they are said to "lack intrinsic nature." Moreover, conditions exist because of effects, so conditions lack intrinsic nature; effects exist because of conditions, so effects lack intrinsic nature. Furthermore, conditions again depend on conditions, so conditions lack intrinsic nature. Also, when the effect arises, the conditions are destroyed; the conditions then undergo change, and thus lack intrinsic nature. The second half reproaches, saying "Arising from what lacks intrinsic nature": this meaning is not taking away their intrinsic nature and calculating that they arise without self-nature. Rather, it makes clear that there is entirely no nature of what can produce or what is produced; how then can one calculate that there is arising within unarisen phenomena? The rest is as in the text. Master Ying explains these two gāthās with two meanings: the first gāthā lists the chapter, and the second gāthā concludes the chapter. Secondly, he says: in the first gāthā, because conditions are non-existent, effects are non-existent; in the latter gāthā, because effects are non-existent, conditions are non-existent. Examining the prose, it is as I have explained. As for the prose saying "Because conditions are refuted, non-conditions are spoken of; in reality there is no phenomenon of non-conditions": one meaning says that the opponent's four conditions encompass all phenomena completely; outside the four conditions there are no further non-conditions. That they speak of their existence is merely an arbitrary calculation of existence. A second meaning says: because your conditions are refuted, conditions become non-conditions; where would there be separate non-conditions that could produce? Question: Why are conditions and non-conditions both refuted, but only effects are refuted and not non-effects? Answer: Insiders and outsiders both perceive the same effect, so the effect does not differ. But insiders calculate production from the four conditions, while outsiders cling to production from the primordial nature and so on; therefore there are conditions and non-conditions.