大乘玄論 1.9

1.9

Sixth, clarifying the Middle Way. First, clarify the Middle Way with reference to the eight negations; second, clarify the Middle Way with reference to the two truths. In the first [part], the master has three modes of exposition. The first mode of exposition states: The reason why the eight negations are enunciated at the beginning is that one wishes to wash away and purify all minds of attainment. Those of attainment without exception fall into these eight fixations. For example, Hinayānists speak of understanding that can be produced and delusion that can be extinguished, and even sentient beings flowing forth from fundamental ignorance and departing by returning to the root and heading back to the source. Now the eight negations horizontally refute the eight delusions and vertically exhaust the five positions; because in seeking their arising and ceasing they cannot be found, it says 'neither arising nor ceasing'. Arising and ceasing having been dispelled, the five positions—'neither arising nor ceasing', 'both arising-ceasing and not-arising-ceasing', and 'neither arising-ceasing nor not-arising-ceasing'—naturally collapse. Thus, while neither arising nor non-arising is the Middle Way, arising yet not arising is the conventional designation. Conventional arising cannot be called arising and cannot be called non-arising; this is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Conventional non-arising cannot be called non-arising and cannot be called non-non-arising; this is named the Middle Way of ultimate truth. This is discussing the Middle Way separately in each of the two truths. However, the arising and ceasing of conventional truth is the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing; the non-arising-and-ceasing of ultimate truth is the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing. Yet how could the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing be non-arising-and-ceasing? Therefore, neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-ceasing is termed clarifying the Middle Way by combining the two truths. The second mode of exposition states: The reason for clarifying three kinds of Middle Way is to reveal that from the night of attaining the Way to the night of nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata constantly preached the Middle Way. Furthermore, those who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way], and hence fall into the error of bias; now, in response to their failure to establish the meaning of the Middle Way, the three [kinds of] Middle [Way] are distinguished. Question: Why do those who study the Buddha's teachings fail to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way]? Answer: Others say that because real dharmas are extinguished, there is no eternalism; because conventional designations are continuous, there is no annihilationism. Now it is held that not being eternal is still annihilationism, and not being annihilated is still eternalism; seeing only annihilationism and eternalism, what Middle Way can there be? In response to this failure to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way], the three kinds of Middle Way are clarified. Now in clarifying the Middle Way: the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing is the Middle of conventional truth; the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing is the Middle of ultimate truth. How could the arising and ceasing of non-arising-and-ceasing be arising and ceasing? How could the non-arising-and-ceasing of arising and ceasing be non-arising-and-ceasing? Therefore, neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-ceasing is clarifying the Middle Way by combining the two truths. Question: How does this subsequent clarification of the three [kinds of] Middle [Way] differ from the preceding one? Answer: The preceding clarification of the Middle Way of the two truths was the conventionality of dependent co-arising, termed the Middle [Way] of refuting intrinsic nature. The third [kind], which doubly dissolves the two conventionalities, is called the Middle of essence, and is also called the Middle Way that expresses dependent co-arising. Therefore, the preceding statements have four gradations: First, in the four propositions of the initial chapter, because intrinsic existence and non-existence cannot be found upon seeking, it states that neither existence nor non-existence is named the Middle Way. When non-Buddhists hear 'neither existence nor non-existence', they immediately think that there are no longer the two truths of ultimate and conventional, and thereby give rise to the view of annihilationism. Therefore, second, it speaks of 'both existing and non-existing' as the two truths to receive their annihilative mind. Third, wishing to reveal that 'both existing and non-existing' clarifies that this is the Middle Way, and that it is the existence and non-existence of dependent co-arising and does not share your sense of intrinsic existence and non-existence, third, it clarifies the Middle of function of the two truths, doubly rebuking both intrinsic natures. Fourth, next wishing to overturn the duality of conventional existence and non-existence, it clarifies the Middle of essence. First it clarifies the emptiness of intrinsic nature; second, it clarifies conventionality; third, it clarifies the Middle of function; fourth, it clarifies the Middle of essence. Thus there are four gradations. These are the four gradations maintained from beginning to end by [Falang of] Mount She and Xinghuang [Temple] in response to traditional doctrines. One who grasps this intent understands the fourfold intent of that one master in establishing the Middle Way, conventionality, essence, and function. Furthermore, taking initial non-intrinsic existence and non-existence as the Middle [Way] is the meaning of the Middle preceding conventionality. Next, taking 'both existing and non-existing' as the two truths is the meaning of conventionality following the Middle. Next, conventional existence not being existence and conventional non-existence not being non-existence, with the two truths jointly clarifying the Middle Way, is the meaning of the Middle following conventionality. Question: In the Middle [Way] of refuting intrinsic nature and the Middle Way expressing dependent co-arising, what are conventionality preceding the Middle and conventionality following the Middle? Answer: Conventionality preceding the Middle means that before the Middle of essence has been taught, conventionality is first clarified; this is what was referred to above as 'both existing and non-existing' following the refutation of intrinsic nature. Conventionality following the Middle means that after the Middle of function and the Middle of essence have been taught, one then speaks of 'both existing and non-existing', which is precisely being constantly quiescent while in motion and constantly functioning while in quiescence; this is the gnosis of skillful means transforming sentient beings. Furthermore, conventionality preceding the Middle enters essence from function; conventionality following the Middle gives rise to function from essence. Question: The first mode of exposition sets forth the assertions of various masters, and the subsequent mode of exposition sets forth the failure of various masters to establish the three [kinds of] Middle [Way]; how do they differ? Answer: The first mode of exposition refutes the eight delusions of non-Buddhists concerning intrinsic nature, clarifying the Middle [Way] by refuting intrinsic nature. Although it sets forth the assertions of various masters, the assertions of the various Dharma masters also contain notions of intrinsic nature. It is also said that it primarily refutes what is external and secondarily refutes what is internal; hence it sets forth the assertions of various masters. The third mode of exposition states: Conventional truth is conventional arising and conventional ceasing; conventional arising is non-arising, and conventional ceasing is non-ceasing; neither arising nor ceasing is the Middle Way of conventional truth, and neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is the Middle Way of ultimate truth. The Middle Way clarified by combining the two truths is neither arising-ceasing nor non-arising-ceasing. Question: How does this differ from the above? Answer: This has two meanings. First, the arising of conventional truth is itself non-arising, just as form is itself emptiness; therefore, non-arising is precisely conventional truth. The non-arising of ultimate truth is the meaning of mutual dependence: dependent upon the arising of conventional truth, the non-arising of ultimate truth is clarified. Second, non-arising and non-ceasing within conventional truth is precisely the conventionality of ultimate truth; it is not clarifying the Middle [Way] by refuting intrinsic nature. In order to clarify that conventional arising in conventional truth, though arising, does not originate, and conventional ceasing in conventional truth, though ceasing, is not lost, arising and ceasing are fully apparent yet have never arisen or ceased; thus the Middle of conventional truth is precisely the conventionality of ultimate truth. Question: How does this differ from the above? Answer: Although both agree in taking arising and ceasing as conventional and non-arising and non-ceasing as ultimate, non-arising has three kinds: The first mode of exposition refutes arising of fixed intrinsic nature to clarify non-arising. The second mode of exposition refutes conventional arising to clarify non-arising; herein lies a difference: refuting arising of fixed intrinsic nature only refutes without gathering in, whereas refuting conventional arising both refutes and gathers in. The third mode of exposition, based on the gate of the level way, says 'unborn' because it is fundamentally unborn, without speaking of refuting defects. Second, clarifying the Middle Way with reference to the two truths. Herein there are three meanings: first, discussing simple and complex with reference to a single meaning; second, discussing simple and complex with reference to complex meanings; third, discussing simple and complex with reference to the two truths. Regarding the first, there are two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, clarifying mutual entry and exit. Now we first directly discuss the meaning of the simple and complex Middle [Way] and conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single conventional existence without speaking of non-existence is simple conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single conventional non-existence without speaking of existence is also simple conventionality. Exclusively speaking of a single non-existence is simple Middle [Way]; non-non-existence is also like this. Jointly speaking of conventional existence and conventional non-existence is complex conventionality. Jointly speaking of neither existence nor non-existence is complex Middle [Way]. Next, explaining the reason for this. There are altogether two meanings: First, simple conventionality is taught for persons of sharp faculties, and complex conventionality is stated for persons of dull faculties. Precisely because persons of sharp faculties understand ten upon hearing one, if they hear conventional existence taught they immediately understand conventional non-existence, and even hearing non-existence taught they immediately understand non-non-existence; therefore there is no need to clarify both meanings fully. For persons of dull faculties, they attain understanding in accordance with words; if it is not spoken fully, they will have no profound awakening; therefore both meanings are clarified together. Second, the simple is taught for persons of dull faculties, and the complex is taught for persons of sharp faculties. Because persons of dull faculties cannot receive the complete teaching, the simple meaning is temporarily taught to refute their attachments. If they are persons of sharp faculties, they are capable of receiving the complete teaching, and so the complex meaning is taught for them, and they accept it entirely. Next, clarifying mutual entry and exit, which has eight propositions: First, from simple conventionality entering simple Middle: or stating that conventional existence is not called existence, entering non-existence from existence; non-existence is also analogous to this. Second, from simple Middle issuing into simple conventionality: or stating that from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence. Third, from complex conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional existence is not called existence, conventional non-existence is not called non-existence; entering neither existence nor non-existence from existence and non-existence. Fourth, from complex Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from neither existence nor non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence and non-existence. Fifth, from simple conventionality entering complex Middle: or stating that conventional existence is not called existence and conventional existence is not called non-existence; entering neither existence nor non-existence from conventional existence; conventional non-existence is also analogous to this. Sixth, from complex Middle issuing into simple conventionality: or stating that from neither existence nor non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence, and from neither non-existence nor existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence. Seventh, from complex conventionality entering simple Middle: existence and non-existence are precisely non-existence. Eighth, from simple Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence and non-existence; from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence and non-non-existence. Next, explaining the reasons, there are two meanings: First, to refute sentient beings' disease of grasping at real entities; as their fixations arise they are dispelled, and therefore there are ultimately many propositions. Second, the great beings are sovereign in contemplation, practice, and supernormal powers, being free of obstacles; thus, for instance, entering correct absorption with the eye faculty and so forth, which will not be explained in detail again. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā states: 'Or arising from a distracted mind, one enters the concentration of the cessation of sensation; arising from the concentration of the cessation of sensation, one enters a distracted mind.' Second, discussing simple and complex with reference to complex meanings also has two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, clarifying entry and exit. First, directly clarifying simple and complex Middle [Way] and conventionality. Conventional existence is conventional truth, conventional non-existence is ultimate truth: this is simple conventionality. Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle Way: this is simple Middle [Way]. Conventional existence and conventional non-existence as dual is conventional truth; neither existence nor non-existence as non-dual is ultimate truth: this is complex conventionality. Neither dual nor non-dual is the Middle Way: this is complex Middle [Way]. Precisely because neither dual exhausts existence and non-existence, and neither non-dual exhausts neither existence nor non-existence, it is the complex Middle [Way]. Next, explaining the reason for this, there are two meanings: Generally speaking, the meaning clarified by the simple Middle and simple conventionality is shallow, while the meaning clarified by the complex Middle and complex conventionality is deep. Why is this so? The two truths of the simple approach, when arriving at the complex meaning, are still conventional truth. The Middle Way of the simple approach, when arriving at the complex meaning, still becomes ultimate truth. The Middle Way of the simple approach directly exhausts the duality of existence and non-existence, but cannot yet exhaust non-duality; the Middle Way of the complex approach exhausts non-duality as well. Second, the meaning clarified simply is superior, while the meaning clarified complexly is inferior. Why is this so? The existence and non-existence of complex conventionality is still the meaning of existence in the previous simple conventionality; the neither existence nor non-existence of the complex Middle is still the meaning of non-existence in the previous simple conventionality; the neither dual nor non-dual of the complex is still the neither existence nor non-existence of the previous simple Middle. Just by directly speaking of existence, existence and non-existence are already subsumed; just by directly speaking of non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence is subsumed; just by speaking of neither existence nor non-existence, neither dual nor non-dual is already subsumed. Its words are concise yet its meaning is broad, and therefore it is superior; the Middle and conventionality of the complex approach are verbose in words yet inferior in meaning. Therefore there is superiority and inferiority. Next, clarifying mutual entry and exit, there are eight propositions: First, from simple conventionality entering simple Middle: conventional existence is not called existence, conventional non-existence is not called non-existence; entering the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence. Second, from simple Middle issuing into simple conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of existence as conventional, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-existence as ultimate. Third, from complex conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional duality is not called duality, conventional non-duality is not called non-duality; entering the Middle Way of neither dual nor non-dual. Fourth, from complex Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from neither dual one conventionally speaks of duality as conventional, and from neither non-dual one conventionally speaks of non-duality as ultimate. Fifth, from simple conventionality entering complex Middle: conventional existence is not called dual, conventional non-existence is not called non-dual; from conventional existence and non-existence entering the Middle Way of neither dual nor non-dual. Sixth, from complex Middle issuing into simple conventionality: from neither dual one conventionally speaks of existence as conventional, and from neither non-dual one conventionally speaks of non-existence as ultimate. Seventh, from complex conventionality entering simple Middle: conventional duality is not called existence, conventional non-duality is not called non-existence; from duality and non-duality entering the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence. Eighth, from simple Middle issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence one conventionally speaks of duality as conventional, and from non-non-existence one conventionally speaks of non-duality as ultimate. The third stage, discussing simple and complex with reference to the two truths, has two [parts]: first, directly clarifying simple and complex; second, entry and exit. First, clarifying simple and complex in conventional truth; second, clarifying simple and complex in ultimate truth. Conventional existence is conventional truth, conventional non-existence is ultimate truth: this is simple conventionality. As for the complex: conventional existence and conventional non-existence are the complex conventionality of conventional truth. Conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence are the complex conventionality of ultimate truth. Taking non-existence as the Middle Way: this is the simple Middle of conventional truth. Taking non-non-existence as the Middle Way: this is the simple Middle of ultimate truth. Neither existence nor non-existence is the complex Middle of conventional truth. Neither non-existence nor non-non-existence is the complex Middle of ultimate truth. Second, clarifying entry and exit has three [parts]: first, with reference to conventional; second, with reference to ultimate; third, interwoven. First, clarifying with reference to conventional truth, there are eight propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle of conventional truth: conventional existence is not called existence, which is precisely entering non-existence from conventional existence. Second, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from non-existence conventionally speaking of existence. Third, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional existence and conventional non-existence enter neither existence nor non-existence. Fourth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the complex conventionality of conventional truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Fifth, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle: conventional existence enters neither existence nor non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into simple conventionality: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of conventional existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle: conventional existence and non-existence enter non-existence. Eighth, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into complex conventionality: from non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Second, distinguishing with reference to ultimate truth, there are eight propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle: conventional non-existence is not called non-existence. Second, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into simple conventionality: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Third, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle: conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence [enter] neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Fourth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into complex conventionality: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Fifth, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle: conventional non-existence is not non-existence, and conventional non-existence is not non-non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into simple conventionality: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle: conventional non-existence and non-non-existence enter non-non-existence. Eighth, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into complex conventionality: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Interwoven clarification of entry and exit has twelve propositions: First, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the simple Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence is not called non-existence; breaking down existence and entering non-non-existence. Second, from the simple Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence. Third, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the simple Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence is not called existence; breaking down non-existence and entering non-existence. Fourth, from the simple Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of ultimate truth: from non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Fifth, from the complex conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence and conventional non-existence enter neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Sixth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the complex conventionality of conventional truth: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence and non-existence. Seventh, from the complex conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence and conventional non-non-existence enter neither existence nor non-existence. Eighth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the complex conventionality of ultimate truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence and non-non-existence. Ninth, from the simple conventionality of ultimate truth entering the complex Middle of conventional truth: conventional non-existence is not called existence and is also not called non-existence, which is precisely neither existence nor non-existence. Tenth, from the complex Middle of conventional truth issuing into the simple conventionality of ultimate truth: from neither existence nor non-existence conventionally speaking of non-existence. Eleventh, from the simple conventionality of conventional truth entering the complex Middle of ultimate truth: conventional existence is not called non-existence and is also not called non-non-existence, which is precisely neither non-existence nor non-non-existence. Twelfth, from the complex Middle of ultimate truth issuing into the simple conventionality of conventional truth: from neither non-existence nor non-non-existence conventionally speaking of existence.