中觀論疏 5.4

5.4

The chapter opens into two parts: first the thesis is established, and next it is refuted. The establishment has two parts: first explaining its characteristics (lakṣaṇa), and next explaining the substantial entity of the dharma (dharma-svabhāva). 'Determinate characteristics' means, for example, that the characteristic of earth is solidity, which cannot be made non-solid, and the characteristic of fire is heat, which cannot be made cold. 'There are the six kinds' means that since there are their characteristics, there are their substantial entities; these are the essential characteristics of the entity, not indicative characteristics, and therefore having the characteristic implies having the entity. Question: How does the establishment in the preceding chapters differ from this establishment? Answer: From Chapter [One], 'Conditions', to [Chapter Four], 'The Five Aggregates', existence (bhāva) was established; here, characteristics (lakṣaṇa) are established. Above, because existence was established, the author of the treatise refuted existence to elucidate the door of liberation of emptiness (śūnyatā). Now, because characteristics are established, he refutes characteristics to elucidate the door of liberation of signlessness (animitta); thus there is a sequence. In the reply, the eight verses are divided into two parts: the first seven verses refute characteristics to elucidate the door of signlessness; the second, a single verse, refutes by way of rebuke, explaining non-existence based on ultimate reality, rebuking their claiming existence where there is none. The first part also has two sections: the first six verses refute space (ākāśa), and the following one verse analogously applies this to the remaining five kinds. The refutation of space has two parts: the first five and a half verses refute the dharma of space, and the next half verse refutes the person who cognizes space. The first has two parts: the first five verses refute space as being existent, and the next half verse refutes space as being non-existent. Within the refutation of existence, the five verses form four sections: the first verse and a half adduces the characterizing mark to refute the characterized; the next verse and a half adduces the characterized to refute the characterizing mark; the third, a single verse, refutes through mutual dependence of mark and characterized; the fourth, a single verse, concludes and refutes. The first verse and a half has two parts: the preceding verse directly refutes, and the next half verse progressively refutes. The first half of the first verse explains that if space depends on a mark, it falls into being without space; the second half explains that if space does not depend on a mark, it falls into being markless: both advancing and retreating result in error. The first half refutes as follows: as for your previous statement that 'the six kinds each have determinate characteristics,' if so, because the mark exists, space exists; but since the mark does not exist, space does not exist. Question: What is the mark of space? Answer: Space has two kinds of marks: first, an indicative mark; second, an essential mark of the entity. For instance, seeing that a pillar exists, one knows that outside the pillar there is non-existence. Dependent on existence one knows non-existence; existence is the indicative mark belonging to non-existence. Second, because the pillar is removed, the non-existence of the pillar is obtained; the locus of the pillar's non-existence is the essential mark of the entity of space. Yet both marks depend on the pillar; if so, because the pillar exists, space can be had; if there were not yet a pillar, there should not yet be space. Furthermore, space and the pillar are concurrent; since the pillar is impermanent, space should also be so. Question: The first half explains that when the mark is non-existent, space is non-existent; is this a relative non-existence through mutual dependence, or an absolute non-existence independent of relation? Answer: It possesses both meanings. If it is an indicative mark, it is non-existent because of mutual dependence; if it is the essential mark of the entity that is non-existent, then being without the mark entails being without the entity. The second half refutes the dharma not concurring with the mark. If you say that before the pillar existed, space already existed, then space would be without a mark; and your prior statement that the six kinds each have determinate characteristics would be invalidated. Question: Of what mark is space devoid? Answer: Space exists before having an indicative mark, so it is just a markless existence of space. If one says it lacks an essential mark of the entity, then being without a mark entails being without space. Therefore, lacking an indicative mark incurs the fault of losing the mark; while lacking an essential mark of the entity incurs two faults: first, falling into being markless; second, falling into being entityless. The prose commentary only explains the second half to show that space falls into being markless, and does not explain the first half regarding the absence of the dharma, which is only explained when reaching the second verse. Or in another sense: being markless is just being without the dharma, and so it also explains the first half. From 'Question' downward, the second half-verse is introduced to progressively refute a markless existent space. Question: The opponent initially said that the six kinds each have determinate characteristics; why now change their tenet to assert a markless existent space? Answer: The opponent's doctrine has a root and branches. Speaking from the root, space is an eternal dharma and the mark is impermanent; thus, before there is a mark, space already pre-exists, so space is markless. Speaking from the branches, form subsequently arises, and dependent on the destruction of form one knows space; hence they say space has a mark. The initial statement that it has a mark was based on its branches; now stating that there is a markless space concerns its root. Therefore, the two statements do not contradict each other. From 'Answer' downward, it refutes a markless existent space. 'Nowhere is there' means: the non-existence explained here is the non-existence of the essential mark of the entity, not the non-existence of the indicative mark; if it lacks the essential mark of the entity, then this thing does not exist. There are two dharmas that subsume all dharmas: first, conditioned dharmas; second, unconditioned dharmas. Conditioned dharmas have arising, abiding, and ceasing as their characteristics; second, unconditioned dharmas have the absence of arising, abiding, and ceasing as their characteristic. Since both have their respective characteristics, these dharmas exist. If space were markless, it would be neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and thus would not be an existent dharma; hence it says 'nowhere is there.' Why? Space is one among the three unconditioned dharmas; how could it be neither conditioned nor unconditioned? Moreover, according to the Abhidharma, there are conditioned space and unconditioned space; now, being neither conditioned nor unconditioned, there is no existent dharma, hence it says 'nowhere is there.' The second half belongs to the next verse and a half, which adduces the characterized to refute the characterizing mark. This further opens into two distinctions: the first half-verse explains that because there is no characterized, what does the characterizing mark characterize? The next single verse opens two approaches to re-examine and challenge the characterizing mark. The first half-verse has two intents: first, to take the idea [of the opponent] and rescue the first half. If space were ultimately markless, one could obtain the absence of the dharma; but though it was previously markless, a mark subsequently comes to characterize it, and therefore it has a mark; because it has a mark, it again has a dharma. Now, conceding this in order to refute it: if previously it were markless and subsequently a mark came to characterize it, the mark would never adhere. As is commonly said, 'the ultimate truth has no name'; if one uses names to designate the truth, one strays ever further from the truth. The second intent says: if it were previously markless, then there would be no dharma; what would the subsequent mark characterize? Just as a pillar has roundness as its mark, if there is no round mark, there is no pillar; what would be characterized? Space has the absence of form as its mark; if there is no absence of form, there is no space; what would be characterized? The prose commentary, from 'If you say that previously it was markless' downward, explains the second half, and further gives rise to the third verse.