十二門論宗致義記 2.7

2.7

The four meanings in explaining this gate are the same as before: First, distinguishing the name: bringing forth an effect is a condition (pratyaya); contemplating that conditions lack intrinsic nature is therefore taken as the gate. Second, the reason for its appearance: previously, when seeking production within causes it could not be found; now, when seeking within conditions there is also no production, hence it follows next. Furthermore, it is because attachments are completely eliminated through multiple gates, and also to show that wherever one touches the path, all is unproduced. Third, clarifying what is elucidated in the chapter: namely, investigating that the four conditions are all devoid of any principle of production is what is held as the thesis. Fourth, in explaining the text, there are five parts: 1. stating the thesis; 2. refuting existence; 3. refuting non-existence; 4. refuting conditions; 5. eliminating by extension. In the first, all dharmas are effects and conditions, which are both unestablished. Second, in refuting existence, there are three parts: 1. presenting the verse to state it briefly; 2. setting forth the characteristics of those conditions; 3. critically refuting them to clarify emptiness. In the first part, the verse is first established, followed by a brief explanation. In the verse, the first half refutes by deprivation, and the second half concludes with rebuke. Alternatively, the first half reveals the principle, and the second half cross-examines subjective views. In the brief explanation, each single condition is broad, while their combination is brief. Within these two gates, seeking the production of existence is impossible. Second, in distinguishing the characteristics of conditions, there are two parts: first a question, then an answer. In the answer, first is the verse, then the explanation. In the verse, the first half settles the matter, and the second half enumerates the names. Because non-Buddhists posit the spiritual self (ātman) as a fifth condition, it is absent here. In the explanation, there are two parts: first, enumerating the names; second, explaining the characteristics. In explaining the characteristics, explaining the four conditions consists of four parts, each having three aspects: heading, explanation, and conclusion. In the first, 'cause condition' (hetu-pratyaya) means taking the cause as a condition, hence it is called 'cause'. Here, the cause is itself the condition, hence it is called 'cause condition'; it is not that direct and indirect are both cited to name it cause condition. Saying 'that from which [something] is produced' reveals the sense of directly producing. Furthermore, this which is produced from it is an effect-dharma, its essence being conditioned, and thus it is subsumed under the three times. In the second, 'the dharma having ceased' refers to the prior mental dharma passing away and ceasing. 'Produced in sequence' means: although the prior mind and mental factors have passed away and ceased, they have the power to vacate and guide, causing the subsequent mental dharmas to be produced without interruption; hence it says 'produced in sequence'. Because it serves as a condition for sequential dharmas, it is so named. In the new translation it is named the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya). This exists only for mental dharmas; all others lack it. In the third, 'condition' means the objective referent (ālambana). Because objective referent dharmas condition the arising of the cognitive mind, mental factors, and so forth, they are called conditions. Thus, taking the objective referent as a condition is called the condition of objective referent (ālambana-pratyaya); the new name is the objective referent condition (ālambana-pratyaya). 'That which is recollected' in the explanation is the objective referent in principle; in reality, it merely gives rise to mind and mental factors, which are established based on the volition-dharma as the two karmas of body and speech, and therefore it generally encompasses all three karmas. In the fourth, because this dharma has predominant, superior power toward that dharma, it is called 'predominant'. The predominant is itself the condition, hence it is called 'predominant condition' (adhipati-pratyaya). This has two kinds: 1. non-obstructive predominance; 2. superior-power auxiliary predominance. This text encompasses both, but is stated according to the latter. Third, critically refuting them to clarify emptiness. Within this, there are five parts: 1. general statement; 2. separate examination; 3. dual cross-examination; 4. concluding non-existence; 5. concluding the thesis. In the separate [examination], first, deprivation of the cause by the condition clarifies that it is non-existent in the cause; second, deprivation of the condition by the cause clarifies that it is non-existent in the condition; third, from 'If in' onward, dual cross-examination; fourth, from 'Therefore' onward, concluding non-existence; fifth, from 'In this way, each single' onward, concluding by directly cross-examining subjective views. 'Each single' is a separate cross-examination, hence broad; 'combination' is a general examination, hence brief. Third, in refuting non-existence, there are three parts: first, establishing the verse, in which the first half cites the outsider's claim, and the second half refutes it alongside non-conditions; then the explanation reveals it. That is, the outsider's intention is: 'Although seeking [the effect] within conditions briefly or broadly fails, what prevents this effect from being produced from the four conditions?' The refuting intention is: 'Since conditions and non-conditions equally lack the effect, yet it can emerge from conditions, why should it not emerge from non-conditions?' The establishment of the syllogism and the rest can be known. Third, from 'Therefore' onward, concluding non-production. Fourth, in refuting conditions, there are two parts: first, stating the thesis, meaning that because they produce an effect they are called conditions; since the effect is not produced, how could there be conditions? Next, in the explanation, 'if the condition is first and the effect is later' is a refutation by pursuing principle based on subjective views, meaning: if the condition is first and lacks [the effect], of what is it a condition? Therefore it is not [a condition]. Fifth, in eliminating by extension, there are three parts: first, concluding that conditioned [dharmas] are empty by extension; second, that unconditioned [dharmas] are empty; third, that the self is empty. Therefore, the three emptinesses eliminate the two selves.