中觀論疏 7.10

7.10

The chapter is opened into three sections: first, refuting the outsider's assertion of illusory persons and phenomena; second, refuting the outsider's attachment to the meaning of emptiness; the third section refutes all of emptiness, existence, and neither emptiness nor existence. Concerning the first, there are four: first, propounding; second, refuting; third, rescuing; fourth, refuting the rescue. Within the first, propounding the thesis, there are again two: the first half cites the sūtra; the second half propounds the thesis. Question: What is the difference between being false and deceptive and erroneous grasping? Answer: False and deceptive refers to the object; erroneous grasping relies on the mental disposition. What is seen is not real—this is called false and deceptive. Among the eighteen sects there are two sects: the first is named the Ekavyāvahārika sect, which maintains that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally provisional designations and unreal, hence called 'One Convention' (Ekavyāvahāra), which originated from the Mahāsāṃghika school. The second is the Lokottaravāda sect, which clarifies that mundane phenomena arise from illusory causes and are therefore unreal, whereas supramundane phenomena do not arise from illusory causes and are called real. If based on the opinions of contemporary thinkers discussing this in terms of the four truths: suffering and origination are illusory causes and effects, hence called illusory; the path is the real cause, and cessation is the real effect, not illusory. If divided by conditioned and unconditioned: the three truths have not escaped being conditioned, hence they are illusory; the truth of cessation is unconditioned, not illusory. Furthermore, the old Dilun masters take the seventh consciousness as illusory and the eighth consciousness as real. The She-dacheng masters take the eighth consciousness as illusory and the ninth consciousness as real. They also say that the eighth consciousness has two meanings: first, illusory; second, real: having the meaning of understanding nature is real; having the retributive consciousness is illusory functioning. The *Awakening of Faith* joins arising-and-ceasing with non-arising-and-ceasing to form the entity of the ālayavijñāna. The *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra* also has two texts: one says that the ālaya is the tathāgatagarbha; the second says that the tathāgatagarbha is not the ālayavijñāna. This one chapter precisely refutes the assertions of the Dilun masters; it does not refute the Sarvāstivādins and the like. The Sarvāstivādins and the like do not clarify that conditioned persons and phenomena are all mere illusory imputations. The second half propounds the thesis, as in the text. From 'Answer' downwards, the second [part] is the treatise master's refutation. The two verses have two parts: the first verse explains the sūtra, corresponding to its first half; the second refutes the propounding, corresponding to its second half. The first verse elucidates the sūtra: it clarifies that the Buddha, in order to refute the view of really existent persons and phenomena, therefore clarified that there is no reality, but there are only illusory appearances that are conceptually held to exist. This intention lies in the absence of reality, not in the existence of the illusory—why do you not grasp the absence of reality, but conversely preserve the existence of the illusory? If one says that there is a single hair's tip that can be grasped, then in principle it exists; how could it be illusory? Because it is called illusory, not a single hair's tip can be grasped; since not a single hair's tip can be grasped, it is emptiness. However, originally 'real' exists in contrast to 'illusory'; since it does not exist even in the illusory, how could there be a real? Contemporary She-dacheng masters and others, upon hearing 'illusory', immediately interpret it as an existent illusion, as in their explanations of the eight kinds of illusion in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* and so forth. Now examining carefully, the treatise master elucidates four intentions of the Buddha's speaking of the illusory: first, to refute the sickness of clinging to real persons and phenomena, he speaks of the illusory—within saṃsāra there are no real persons or phenomena, there is only illusion. Second, like the Daśabhūmika masters and others who, hearing 'illusory', interpret it as an existent illusion, holding that while there are no real persons or phenomena, there are illusory persons and phenomena: the treatise master elucidates the Buddha's intention, saying that since it is called false and deceptive, what could there be? The Buddha spoke this wishing to reveal emptiness. Third, when the Buddha spoke of false and deceptive, he did not preserve emptiness either. Fourth, not only did he not preserve emptiness or existence, he also did not preserve neither emptiness nor existence, so that there is completely nothing to rely upon or attain, causing [one] to awaken to the true nature of phenomena. Now, hearing 'illusory' and interpreting it as an existent illusion, one merely grasps the word 'illusion', but does not understand the intention of 'illusion'. The Buddha speaking of suffering also had four intentions: first, to refute pleasure; second, not to preserve suffering; third, not to preserve emptiness or existence; fourth, having no reliance on anything whatsoever.