大乘玄論 1.13

1.13

Clarifying Identity and Difference, the tenth. There are two masters: the first is [the proponent of] the empty provisional designation; the second is [the proponent of] the non-empty provisional designation. The non-empty provisional designation means that there is only the absence of an intrinsic substantiality, but provisional conventional truth exists and cannot be entirely non-existent, like a mouse gnawing a chestnut. The second, the empty provisional designation, maintains that this conventional truth is entirely ungraspable; if viewed as provisional existence, it is entirely the conventional truth, and if viewed as non-existence, it is entirely the ultimate truth, like pressing a floating gourd into water. The hand lifting the gourd to make its body emerge is the conventional truth; the hand pressing the gourd to make its body submerge is the ultimate truth. We now clarify the doctrine by establishing three stages with regard to these two meanings. First, tentatively, both are incorrect. The preceding two explanations differ: for the chestnut eater, the provisional existent dharma is constantly not empty, and the emptiness within the provisional wall lacks intrinsic nature; is this not then existence being identical to emptiness? Therefore they also differ. As for the second explanation, if submerged, it is entirely empty, and there is no longer conventional truth; if emerging, it is entirely conventionally existent, and there is no longer ultimate truth. Nor can it be that when existing, it is empty, and when empty, it exists. In the second stage, when reconciling them, both can be reconciled: although existent, it is empty, and being empty, it exists. However, when speaking of emptiness, one does not lose existence, and when speaking of existence, one does not harm emptiness; this still accords with the first meaning of the non-empty conventional truth, yet there has never been an existence that is not empty, nor an emptiness that is not existent. When empty, it is entirely empty; when existing, all exists; this also accords with the second meaning of the empty conventional truth. In the third stage, one accepts one and rejects the other, greatly diverging from the chestnut eater and adopting the pressing of the gourd. Hitherto, the two truths did not establish the meaning of pressing the gourd; hitherto, there were two separate principles, so how could they be called the two truths of pressing the gourd? Only now can this meaning be used, because there is only a single gourd, which originally neither emerges nor submerges. For example, there is only a single Way, which is neither existent nor non-existent. Yet in the functioning of the gourd, sometimes it emerges and sometimes it submerges, which exemplifies the function of the two truths, sometimes speaking of the conventional and sometimes speaking of the ultimate; this is why it only now constitutes the meaning of pressing the gourd. This metaphor is also a partial explanation: when the gourd is submerged, it does not emerge, and when it emerges, it does not submerge. In our present doctrine, there is no existence that is not empty, nor emptiness that is not existent; here they are not parallel, so emergence and submergence cannot serve as a complete metaphor. Now emergence has no separate emergence, but is the emergence of what was submerged; submergence has no separate submergence, but is the submergence of what emerged. Thus emptiness has no separate emptiness, for what is spoken of as existence is empty; existence has no separate existence, for what is spoken of as emptiness is existent. Next, Zhou Yong clarified the two truths of the three traditions: first, non-empty provisionality; second, empty provisionality; third, provisional emptiness. Empty provisionality is that used by Kaishan and others. Provisional emptiness is the first tier of the two truths among the fourfold two truths: although empty, it is vividly provisional; although provisional, it is vividly empty; emptiness and existence are unobscured. Question: If it is provisional emptiness, when provisional arising does not arise, does it not arise from real arising? Or does it not arise from provisional arising? Answer: There are three kinds of non-arising. If provisional arising does not arise, this is the meaning of the non-existence of real arising of intrinsic nature. Second, naturally there is provisional arising not arising; not arising from provisional arising is the Middle Way of the conventional truth, using the provisional of the ultimate truth as the Middle of the conventional truth. Third, it clarifies that provisional arising is itself non-arising, placing non-arising in the ultimate truth. If non-arising and non-ceasing are discussed together, there are three kinds of non-arising and non-ceasing: first, non-arising and non-ceasing of intrinsic nature, clarified regarding conventional truth; second, non-arising and non-ceasing of provisionality, clarified regarding ultimate truth; third, because conventional truth is existence, it clarifies non-arising, and because ultimate truth is non-existence, it clarifies non-ceasing. The two truths are discussed together, and hence it is called non-arising and non-ceasing.