中觀論疏 6.8

6.8

From “An agent does not perform what is determinate” onward is the fourth gateway, [examining] the one and the three. The preceding was a separate refutation; this is a combined refutation. The two verses comprise two [sections]: the first verse explains that one person cannot perform three kinds of karma; the next verse explains that three persons cannot perform one kind of karma. “One person does not perform three kinds of karma” means taking any one person among the three kinds—either an existent person, a non-existent person, or a half-existent and half-non-existent person. An existent person not performing the three kinds of karma means: since the person is existent, karma is already non-existent and cannot be performed; karma already exists and need not be performed; half-existent is the same as existent, and half-non-existent is the same as non-existent. In the next verse, “three persons cannot perform one karma” refers to any [karma] among the three persons. “Question: If there is no action and no agent” onward: hitherto the view of existent person and dharmas has been refuted; from here below is the second [part], refuting the view of no person and dharmas. If treated as the intention of elucidating and refuting: the preceding was refuting errors, and now it is elucidating the sūtras. The final verse of Chapter [7, “Examination of the] Three Characteristics,” elucidated the sūtras, and seven chapters refuted attachments. Indeed, because the illness of attachment was so severe, it first had to be extensively refuted; before that was done, it was not yet possible to present the meaning of action for them, so illusions and transformations were provisionally adduced to enlighten them. When reaching the Chapter on the Agent, the illness of attachment was gradually eliminated, so in each chapter one or two essential phrases occasionally appear, enabling them to recognise the sūtras' meaning of dependent origination and provisional designation. The text has two parts: first the question, then the answer. Question: What is the difference between the heterodox master's faulting the treatise master here for [advocating] causelessness, and the treatise master's faulting the opponent above for causelessness? Answer: Previously, the opponent held that the person and dharmas exist; person and dharmas were each established without needing to depend on each other, and thus fell into causelessness. Now it is explained that there is no person or dharma at all, so there is nothing that can depend on each other; this is why they differ. “Answer: This karma arises from multiple conditions” onward is the second [part], the answer; first the prose, then the verse. Refuting this view has three approaches in all: First, since your [notion of] cause cannot be established, how could there be causelessness? Thus all five propositions are unobtainable. Second, existence and non-existence both arise from your mind: previously you asserted existence, but once existence was sought and found nowhere, you then saw non-existence; these are entirely your existence and your non-existence, and have nothing to do with me. Third, what was explained above as non-existent was merely the non-existence of the five kinds of person and dharmas seen by you, not the non-existence of a provisionally designated, dependently arisen person and dharmas. This single answer contains many facets: First, the above explanation of no person and no dharma refuted their view of existence; now, explaining the provisionally designated person and dharmas remedies their mindset of annihilationism, demonstrating the meaning of neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor permanence. Second, the above explanation of neither person nor dharma is the middle way; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is termed provisional designation; this is the meaning of the middle preceding the provisional, and the provisional following the middle. Third, the above explanation of neither person nor dharma is the emptiness of intrinsic nature; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is the emptiness of dependent origination, whereby person and dharmas can be established. Hence the old saying of the mountain tradition: “Within the emptiness of intrinsic nature all dharmas are established.” Fourth, the above explanation of no person and no dharma is conventional truth refuting intrinsic nature and speaking of emptiness, which is the middle way of conventional truth; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is the middle way: conventional dependently arisen person and dharmas have never been person and dharmas, which is called neither person nor dharma, termed the emptiness of dependent origination, which is the middle way of ultimate truth. Question: This merely explains dependently arisen person and dharmas; where is the text for “neither person nor dharma”? Answer: The text is clearly shown in the prose following the verse. Fifth, the above explanation of the absence of the five kinds of person and dharmas is refuting errors; now, explaining dependently arisen person and dharmas is elucidating the sūtras. The verse is divided into two: the first three lines explain that there are dependently arisen person and dharmas. The single line “there is no other thing” discriminates that there are none of the opponent's five kinds of person and dharmas. The statements on middle and provisional in a certain master's opening chapter were all formulated relying on this passage of the Chapter on the Agent. The faults of the four pairs in the opening chapter are the preceding faulting of the opponent's view that person and dharmas do not depend on each other; the correctness of the four pairs is the meaning in this passage that person and dharmas depend on each other. Therefore, the statements in the opening chapter originated from this passage. Middle and provisional arising from this chapter means: demonstrating that the opponent's intrinsically existent person and dharmas are unobtainable, being neither person nor dharma, is the meaning of the middle preceding the provisional. Dependently arisen person and dharmas is the meaning of the provisional preceding the middle. Dependently arisen person and dharmas being neither person nor dharma is called the meaning of the middle following the provisional. Neither person nor dharma being provisionally designated as person and dharmas is the meaning of the provisional following the middle. Although the Sanlun masters recite the words of middle and provisional in the opening chapter, they do not know the source in the text; hence I indicate it briefly here. The prose stating “karma is initially determinately non-existent” simply means that karma initially lacks determinacy; the rest is all easy to understand. Furthermore, from “Just as refuting action and agent” onward is the second [part], refuting experience and experiencer; its sequence is as before.