中觀論疏 3.5

3.5

From "That which is unarisen" downwards is the second [section], which explains the opening stanza—that is, the text explaining the eight negations. This text is introduced for two purposes: first, to explain the general refutation of all phenomena mentioned above. Because there is neither arising nor ceasing, the remaining six items are likewise non-existent; thus, the two negations [of arising and ceasing] comprehensively refute all phenomena, all the more so the eight negations. Second, it is introduced in order to explain the passage on the eight negations itself. In terms of the text, it is explained through two cycles. In the mountains, it was traditionally said: the first cycle explains in terms of the approach of the ultimate truth, and the second cycle explains in terms of the approach of conventional truth. As for why it is explained in terms of the two truths, the Buddhas' preaching of the Dharma always relies on the two truths. Since the eight negations are the Buddha's preaching, they are also the two truths; hence they are explained through the approaches of the two truths. Explaining the ultimate truth first and conventional truth afterwards is because the ultimate truth is the fundamental and conventional truth is the derivative; therefore, it first explains its fundamental aspect and next explains its derivative aspect. Question: How is it known that the former is the ultimate truth and the latter is conventional truth? Answer: The latter says, "because it is directly seen in the world," from which one knows it is conventional truth. Since the latter is conventional truth, one knows that the former is the ultimate truth. At the place of the great scholar Dharma Master Dao'an in the mountains, I heard this when I was nineteen years old. That master said: "The former [cycle], on the ultimate truth, borrows arising to reveal non-arising; therefore it adduces the arising [posited by] the various treatise masters to elucidate non-arising. The subsequent [cycle], on conventional truth, borrows non-arising to reveal arising; therefore it says below that the myriad things are unarisen. Adducing that the myriad things are unarisen is intended to reveal and establish dependent arising." Question: Above it was said that the ultimate truth refutes provisional arising, while the conventional truth refutes real arising. If so, then the former refutation of the arising posited by the various debate-masters should be a refutation of provisional arising, and only the latter would be a refutation of real arising. Answer: In the ultimate truth, both provisional and real are cut off, and it completely refutes both kinds of arising; the various treatise masters establish both provisional and real. Therefore, refuting the arising posited by the various treatise masters is precisely elucidating the middle way of ultimate truth. Since the beginning refutes both provisional and real, while the subsequent only refutes the real, there is also no error. The master also said: "The arising posited by the various treatise masters is, in relation to the Tathāgata, precisely the ultimate truth. As the sūtra says: 'All conventional truths, in relation to the Tathāgata, are precisely the ultimate truth.'" Furthermore, both cycles explaining the eight negations equally refute the inverted, fixed attachments of all persons with appropriation, and equally elucidate the Buddha's middle way of the two truths. It is only that the first cycle explains in general, formulating four pairs of explanations for people of the three faculties; whereas the second cycle takes a specific, presently visible matter to explain it—this is why they differ. Furthermore, the first cycle explains directly, whereas the second cycle explains by verification. Explaining by verification means: when outsiders hear the initial explanation of non-arising, they do not have faith and accept it; therefore it adduces a matter right before one's eyes to reveal and explain it, so it is an explanation by verification. Furthermore, the first cycle directly elucidates that phenomena are unarisen right as they are, whereas the subsequent cycle elucidates that they are originally unarisen. Therefore, the later text relies on the beginning of the kalpa to elucidate non-arising, as well as non-coming, [non-going,] and so forth. A scholar at Xinghuang said: The first cycle refutes the real arising of the various treatise masters to elucidate non-arising, explaining in terms of the approach of conventional truth; only in the subsequent cycle can one produce the provisional from intrinsic nature, and by quieting the provisional elucidate the ultimate truth, which is why the latter explains in terms of the approach of the ultimate truth. In the first [cycle], it formulates four pairs of explanations, which constitute four distinct parts. The first pair comprises two parts: first, properly explaining non-arising and non-ceasing; second, explaining the subsumption of phenomena. In the first text there are two parts: first, explaining non-arising; second, using it as a model to elucidate non-ceasing. Explaining non-arising has two parts: first, stating the topic heading of non-arising; second, explaining the topic heading. "That which is unarisen" marks the topic heading. From "the various treatise masters" downwards is the second part, explaining the topic heading. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining arising; second, explaining non-arising. Explaining arising has two parts: first, generally stating what the various treatise masters posit; second, separately presenting their nine positions. Question: This treatise refutes deluded interpretations of the Mahāyāna, and Mahāyāna practitioners also receive the eight negations; why then elucidate their positing of arising? Answer: Although they claim to study the Mahāyāna, they merely form fixed understandings of the two truths, claiming that conventional truth naturally possesses arising and ultimate truth naturally lacks arising. The Buddha merely taught that that which arises is unarisen, yet they claim that arising is distinct from non-arising; therefore they must be refuted. When persons with appropriation elucidate arising and non-arising, in comparison with the meaning of non-appropriation, both are entirely arising; therefore arising is refuted. Furthermore, persons with appropriation do not know the arising of non-arising, and so their formulation of the meaning of conventional arising cannot be established; therefore we now refute arising. Furthermore, Hīnayāna treatise masters cling to phenomena as definitely having arising and do not believe in Mahāyāna non-arising, which obstructs the non-arising of the eight negations; now, wishing to refute the Hīnayāna obstruction and elucidate the non-arising of the eight negations, we therefore refute arising. Once the affliction of arising is removed, non-arising does not remain either; therefore the five propositions are left without anything to rely upon. Question: Now, in elucidating the Buddha's middle way of the two truths of the eight negations, how does refuting the arising posited by the various treatise masters clarify the middle way of the ultimate truth? Answer: This may be viewed from two perspectives. If viewed in terms of the Buddha's middle way of the two truths, it clarifies that dependent arising is precisely non-arising, and is therefore called the middle way of the ultimate truth; this reveals that non-arising does not exist distinct from arising—that which arises is itself unarisen, and is therefore called non-arisen. If viewed in terms of refuting the affliction of being deluded about the teaching, it refutes the arising posited by the various treatise masters as unsustainable, non-arising naturally belongs to the opponent, and only then can one clarify that dependent arising is precisely non-arising, which is called the ultimate truth. The master also said: "The Buddha merely refutes the arbitrary positing of arising by sentient beings, and therefore calls it non-arising, which is itself called the ultimate truth. Apart from this arising, where else could there be an ultimate truth? The treatise master now merely elucidates the Buddha's teaching refuting arising, and therefore elucidates the ultimate truth." It is also said: because of refuting errors, he elucidates the teaching; it can also be that precisely elucidating this refutation is what is called elucidating the teaching. Question: How many kinds of delusion do the various treatise masters have? Answer: The various treatise masters do not know the non-arising of arising, and are therefore deluded about the ultimate truth; nor do they know the arising of non-arising, and are therefore deluded about conventional truth. Question: What is the difference between the various treatise masters listed here and the previous eight errors? Answer: The previous eight errors are what the non-Buddhists posited and were refuted by the Buddha; the present treatise masters are Buddhist scholars and are refuted by Nāgārjuna.