大乘玄論 2.4

2.4

第一辨大意者，八不者蓋是諸佛之中心、眾聖之行處也。故《華嚴經》云「文殊法常爾，一切無畏人，一道出生死，更無異趣也。」即是論初八不，故竪貫眾經、橫通諸論也。故經云「不一亦不二，不常亦不斷，不來亦不出，不生亦不滅」也。又經中明百非。「非」與「不」及「無」，三名亦得通目一法，亦不無其異，不得一向一種，後別明之。異者，如不有、非有及與無有，不得不異義。如食無食，則未曾有食；若言不食，則非是無食，故知有異也。雖異而為洗諸法，即明三字不異，還是一意。以八不洗除，盡淨諸法，故經中具有百非，即還是百不、百無等，故多有所關義，所以竪入群經之深奧，橫通諸論之廣大也。明經之深處即是八不，不則不於一切法也。以不而明義，故知其深奧也。如《成論》等釋，雖言百非、百不，及與絕等，而有理存焉，謂得還成失。即是小乘觀行有所得，不離斷常心，非關經之深遠也。今明以不而為義，義即該廣也。言竪者謂之縱，縱只是深，即經之深旨。如言非不無等，亦復不於無等，經之深處也。橫通諸論者，橫只是廣闊之稱，亦為對治藥病。如有無相治等，悉是橫論。如言有即為橫、不有為竪，亦如絕為橫、不絕為竪。若不絕為橫，則非絕非不絕為竪。以不義據初，如是深不亦於不。何所而不不？如言為橫、不言為竪，橫竪亦不定，隨而望之。若有無斷常相治為橫，病息藥除故為竪，故以隨處得論。而言八不竪入經深者，深義經也。橫通諸論者，辨論破病用。經未始無橫，如三修八倒斷常相破。論未始不明竪，如《十二門論》言「若使無有有，云何當有無。有無既已無，知有無者誰？」豈非遠竪義。故經明深竪不義，不義不有有，故未始無橫。論辨而明藥病，藥病無而明不，未始無竪。不不一切，以不明義，豈不窮深？深義亦不，即是菩薩觀行。若謂有此深遠，即是聲聞觀也。然不義，非止入經深，亦廣明眾行。行波若之因，會涅槃之果，皆為八不所不。不此深勝法，以不而為深義，深義亦不也。但釋八不名者，故如不生者，諸論師言：此法不生，而不妨有種種釋生相也。今明此不不於生，生本來不生。亘十方橫、通三世竪，一切佛法皆同，無非不生也。如成實論師云：真理名不生理境也。今大乘義，若有理如是生，無有一法是有而不生也。若言有理存焉是不生者，亦應有存焉非是有，如本有常住不生等，如是破求之。今明諸法不生，不生故名無生。無生法忍既爾，不生何得有滅之對生？生故方滅，既不生亦復不滅也。以有無三時等撿求，滅相不可得。如論破乳，不於乳時滅，亦不異時滅。具出彼論也。

First, regarding the explanation of the general meaning: the eight negations are indeed the heart of all buddhas and the sphere of practice of all the noble ones. Therefore, the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "The Dharma of Mañjuśrī is ever thus: all fearless people depart from birth-and-death by a single path, and there is no other destination." This is precisely the eight negations at the beginning of the treatise [Madhyamakaśāstra], and thus vertically they penetrate all the sūtras, and horizontally they pervade all the treatises. Therefore a sūtra says: "Neither identical nor different, neither eternal nor annihilated, neither coming nor going, neither arising nor ceasing." Furthermore, the sūtras explain the hundred negations. The three terms "is not" (fei), "not" (bu), and "without" (wu) can also generally designate one phenomenon, yet they are also not without differences; they cannot be treated unconditionally as identical, which will be explained separately later. As for their difference, expressions such as "not existent" (bu-you), "is not existent" (fei-you), and "without existence" (wu-you) cannot but differ in sense. For example, regarding food: "without food" means that there has never been food; if one says "does not eat", it does not mean "without food". Hence we know there is a difference. Yet, although they differ, for the sake of washing away all phenomena, we then explain that these three characters do not differ and return to a single meaning. Because the eight negations wash away and completely purify all phenomena, the sūtras fully possess the hundred negations (bai-fei), which are none other than the hundred "nots" (bai-bu) and hundred "withouts" (bai-wu), and so on; thus they concern many points of meaning, and this is why vertically they penetrate into the profundity of the manifold sūtras, and horizontally they pervade the vastness of the treatises. To clarify the profound depths of the sūtras is precisely the eight negations; "not" means not [affirming] any phenomenon. By using "not" to clarify the meaning, we therefore know its profundity. As in the explanations of the Tattvasiddhi and others, although they speak of the hundred negations, hundred "nots", and transcendence and so on, there remains a principle persisting therein, which means that what they think they have attained turns back into a loss. This is the contemplation practice of the Hīnayāna with attainment, which does not depart from the mind of annihilation and permanence, and has nothing to do with the profundity of the sūtras. Now we explain that by using "not" as the meaning, the meaning is comprehensive and broad. What is called "vertical" means height/depth; depth is simply profundity, which is the profound purport of the sūtras. When it is said "it is not, not, without", and so forth, it is also not [clinging] to "without" and the like, which is the profound depth of the sūtras. As for "horizontally pervading all treatises": "horizontal" is merely an expression for broad and wide, and it also functions as medicine counteracting illness. Things like existence and non-existence counteracting each other are all horizontal discussions. For instance, to say "existence" is horizontal, while "non-existence" is vertical; it is also like saying "transcendence" is horizontal, while "non-transcendence" is vertical. If non-transcendence is horizontal, then neither transcendence nor non-transcendence is vertical. Taking the meaning of "not" as the basis at the outset, such a profound "not" also negates "not". What is there that it does not negate? If speech is horizontal, silence is vertical; horizontal and vertical are also not fixed, but are viewed according to context. If existence and non-existence, annihilation and permanence counteracting each other are horizontal, then the cessation of the disease and the removal of the medicine is vertical; hence it can be discussed according to each case. When it is said that the eight negations vertically penetrate into the profundity of the sūtras, the profound meaning is the sūtras. That they horizontally pervade all treatises refers to the function of treatises in refuting diseases. The sūtras have never lacked the horizontal, as in the three cultivations and eight inversions mutually refuting annihilation and permanence. The treatises have never failed to explain the vertical, as the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra says: "If there were non-existence of existence, how could there be non-existence? Since both existence and non-existence are already non-existent, who is it that knows existence and non-existence?" Is this not a profoundly vertical meaning? Therefore the sūtras clarify the deep and vertical meaning of "not"; the meaning of "not" does not affirm existence, and so they have never lacked the horizontal. The treatises elucidate and clarify medicine and illness; when medicine and illness are non-existent and "not" is clarified, they have never lacked the vertical. Not negating and negating all, clarifying the meaning by "not"—how could this not exhaust the depths? The profound meaning is also negated; this is the contemplation practice of bodhisattvas. If one maintains that there is this profundity, this is the contemplation of śrāvakas. However, the meaning of "not" does not only enter into the depth of the sūtras, it also broadly illuminates the manifold practices. Practicing the cause of prajñā and realizing the fruit of nirvāṇa are all negated by the eight negations. Negating this profound and supreme Dharma, taking "not" as the profound meaning, the profound meaning is also negated. Merely to explain the terms of the eight negations: as with "non-arising", various treatise masters say: "This phenomenon does not arise, yet this does not prevent there being various explanations of the characteristics of arising." Now we clarify that this "not" does not negate arising [as an opposing entity], for arising is originally non-arising. Extending horizontally through the ten directions and vertically through the three times, all the Buddhadharmas are alike: none is not non-arising. As the Tattvasiddhi masters say: "The true principle is called the cognitive object of the principle of non-arising." In our Mahāyāna meaning, if there were a principle like this that arises, there would not be a single phenomenon that exists without being non-arising. If one says there is a principle persisting therein which is non-arising, there should also be something persisting therein which is not existent, like original existence, eternal abiding, non-arising, and so forth; thus we refute and examine it. Now we clarify that all phenomena are non-arising; because they are non-arising, they are called unborn. Since the receptivity to the unborn Dharma is thus, how could non-arising have ceasing as an opposite to arising? Only because of arising is there ceasing; since there is no arising, there is also no ceasing. Examining and searching by means of existence, non-existence, the three times, and so forth, the characteristic of ceasing cannot be found. Just as the treatise [Madhyamakaśāstra] refutes milk: it does not cease at the time of milk, nor does it cease at a different time. This is fully set forth in that treatise.