三論玄義 1.4

1.4

Regarding what is meant by 'smashing the tīrthikas': the most wondrous, open, and penetrating is referred to as the path; because their minds wander outside the path, they are called 'tīrthikas' (outsiders to the path). Tīrthikas are of many kinds, but two are briefly set forth: first, the divergent attachments of India; second, the various masters of China. Discussing the ninety-six heterodox arts of the Western Regions in general, but specifically setting forth the cardinal tenets, four attachments prevail: first, positing erroneous cause and erroneous effect; second, clinging to absence of cause and presence of effect; third, establishing presence of cause and absence of effect; fourth, discerning absence of cause and absence of effect. Question: What is meant by 'erroneous cause and erroneous effect'? Answer: A tīrthika says that Maheśvara is capable of producing the myriad things, and when the myriad things are extinguished, they return to the original god; hence he is called 'Sovereign' (Maheśvara). If the god is angry, the four modes of birth all suffer; if Maheśvara is pleased, then all six destinies rejoice. However, the god is not the cause of things, and things are not the effect of the god; this is merely a projection of an erroneous mind, and hence is called 'erroneous cause and erroneous effect'. (Maheśvara being like this, the other seven doctrines are likewise so.) Objection: Wholesome actions bring forth pleasant retribution, and unwholesome actions invite painful effects; this is indeed the dwelling place of alternation and the sphere of karmic retribution. Because they do not comprehend this principle, they give rise to such fallacies. Moreover, the human species generates humans, and kinds of things generate things; when the human species generates humans, humans resemble humans, and when kinds of things generate things, things resemble things. This is the way of mutual generation. Yet to claim that the cause of a single god produces the retribution of a myriad species—how could this not be a fallacy? Question: What is meant by 'absence of cause and presence of effect'? Answer: There are also tīrthikas who exhaustively investigate the myriad things and find no basis or reliance; hence they claim there is no cause. Yet seeing phenomena at present, one must know there are effects. This is like Zhuang Zhou's shadow being questioned by the penumbra: the shadow exists because of the form, the form is caused by the Creator, and the Creator has no source. Since the root originally exists of itself, the branches do not depend on anything else; therefore, there is an absence of cause and a presence of effect. Question: What difference is there between 'absence of cause' and 'svabhāva' (spontaneity)? Answer: 'Absence of cause' is based on the non-existence of its cause; 'svabhāva' clarifies the existence of its effect. Viewed in terms of meaning they differ, yet they are still one single attachment. Objection: Cause and effect mutually generate each other, just as long and short give form to each other. Since there is an effect, how could there be no cause? If there is no cause, how could there alone be an effect? If there were definitely effects without causes, then wholesome actions would invite hell, and unwholesome actions would evoke heaven. Question: Someone says that svabhāva has a cause, or that svabhāva has no cause, and that the myriad transformations are diverse yet all exist by svabhāva; thus they do not incur the previous flaw. Answer: It is because of not scrutinizing carefully that such a fallacy arises. If one investigates thoroughly, the principle is certainly not so. When discussing 'self' (sva-), its meaning is 'not other'. If it necessarily depends on other, then it is not 'self'. Therefore, if it is 'self', it is not dependent; if it is dependent, it is not 'self'. If one then claims that it is dependent and yet self-existent, the meaning becomes a contradiction. Question: What is meant by 'presence of cause and absence of effect'? Answer: The school of ucchedadṛṣṭi holds that there is only the present and no future life, like plants and trees being exhausted in a single period. Objection: The spiritual way is dark and mysterious; deluded people are mostly ignorant of it. Its principle was not made clear through the Classics of Confucius, and its meaning remained obscure through the works of the Duke of Zhou; only the Buddhist doctrine fully reaches its purport. A sutra says: 'Like a sparrow in a jar whose opening is covered with thin silk; when the silk is pierced the sparrow flies away, the form perishing while the spirit departs.' Huiyuan of Mount Lu explained: 'The transmission of fire from firewood is like the transmission of the spirit from physical form. The transmission of fire to different firewood is like the transmission of the spirit to a different form. The former firewood is not the latter firewood; thus we know the subtlety of the art of exhausting the fuel. The former form is not the latter form; thus we awaken to the depth of the resonance of mental states. One cannot see that the form decays in a single lifetime and thereupon say that consciousness and spirit are both lost, just as when the fire is exhausted in a single piece of wood, one should not say that the ultimate end is completely extinguished.' Later scholars praised the words of the Yellow Emperor, saying: 'Though the form decomposes, the spirit does not transform; riding transformation it reaches boundless metamorphosis.' Although this does not overtly speak of the three times, the intent has already clarified that the future is uninterrupted. Question: What is meant by 'absence of cause and absence of effect'? Answer: It rejects future fruitional effects, and also denies present causes. Thus the six teachers said: 'There is no dark karma, and no retribution of dark karma; there is no bright karma, and no retribution of bright karma.' Among the four erroneous views, this is the most harmful; in the present it severs wholesome roots, and in the next life one is born into the evil destinies. Question: When did these tangled fallacies begin? Answer: Before Śākyamuni arose, they were widely prevalent in India. When the Muni appeared, he eliminated these erroneous opinions. After the Buddha passed into extinction, the branches and twigs grew even more abundant; Nāgārjuna later arose and pruned them once again.