大乘玄論 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.5 — 4 parts

2.2

The meaning of the eight negations has six levels.

First, distinguishing the general purport; second, clarifying the three kinds of Middle Way; third, discussing the Middle Way of wisdom; fourth, miscellaneous questions; fifth, discussing the single and compound propositions; sixth, clarifying non-existent existence.

2.4

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.

2.5.1

Second, explaining the three kinds of Middle Way. The Tattvasiddhi masters explain the eight negations differently: one says that all eight negations are the Middle Way of the ultimate truth, and are also the ultimate truth itself. Another says that neither arising nor ceasing is the Middle Way, which is the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-existence of the ultimate truth, whereas the remaining six negations are the Middle Way of the conventional truth. We say this is not so. They do not understand the purport of the Mahāyāna treatises; they only judge in this way according to the Hīnayāna sense. We now say that the eight negations possess three kinds of Middle Way, which are precisely the two truths. Yet the Tattvasiddhi masters explain three kinds of Middle Way: first, the Middle Way of the conventional truth; second, the Middle Way of the ultimate truth; third, the Middle Way that jointly discusses the ultimate and the conventional. As for the Middle Way of the conventional truth: since the conventional truth does not go beyond the three designations, they explain the Middle Way based on the three designations. First, the designation based on causal composition explains the Middle Way through neither identical nor different. How so? A single pillar gathers the four subtle [elements] into one; this is non-identical yet one. The four dusts [sense-data] together constitute one designation without difference, yet designation and substantial entity are distinct. Being distinct, they are not identical; being one, they are not different; being distinct, they are neither identical nor different: causal composition explains the Middle Way. Second, continuity explains the Middle Way through neither eternal nor severed. But the designation of continuity has different interpretations: one says that one in the stage of succession explains the designation of continuity; another says that the preceding subtle and the subsequent single [moment] explain the designation of continuity, like the end of the mind of consciousness and the beginning of the mind of ideation, with the exact middle as the designation. A third is what Longguang transmitted from Kaishan, saying that to explain the designation of continuity: the subsequent arising joins with the preceding, and the preceding transforms into the subsequent, which is arising and reaching, together constituting the designation. Although the explanations of the three masters differ, through mutual continuity it is not severed, and through cessation it is not eternal: neither severed nor eternal explains the Middle Way of continuity. Third, the Middle Way is explained through the designation of mutual dependence. That is to say, there is mutual dependence of opening and avoiding, like the phenomena of matter and mind, which are called universal dependence, and also called fixed dependence. Like the phenomena of long and short, ruler and minister, father and son: the short is not short in itself, but is short because it is compared to the long; the long is not long in itself, but is long because it is compared to the short; such is mutual deprivation and dependence. Up to ruler and minister, father and son, and so on, which are called particular dependence, and also called non-fixed dependence. Although universal and particular are distinct, they are all the Middle Way explained through the designation of mutual dependence. Being designated rather than real, it accords with principle and therefore is not empty; being neither real nor empty universally explains the Middle Way of the conventional truth. The Middle Way of the ultimate truth is without name and without characteristic, provisionally using names in mutual dependence. The ultimate depends on ultimate non-existence, and therefore non-existence expresses not being non-existent, and moreover not being existent; neither existent nor non-existent is called the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. As for the Middle Way uniting the ultimate and conventional: as when the conventional truth speaks of existence, existence is not true existence; the ultimate truth is named non-existence, non-existence is not fixed non-existence; neither existent nor non-existent is called the Middle Way uniting both. Emperor Wu of the Liang ordered Dharma Master Zang of Kaishan Monastery to compose a subcommentary on the meaning. The Dharma master had no leisure from his lecturing duties, so the scholars consulted together and chose Master Kai of Ancheng Monastery and Master Yuan of Anle Monastery to compose the subcommentary on the Dharma master's behalf. These two men were adept at capturing the meaning and had refined comprehension of the non-Buddhist classics; having listened twice, they completed fourteen fascicles, which formed one work and submitted it to the Dharma master for selection. The Dharma master held the subcommentary in his own hands, read it through once, approved it, and said it could be sent out. This subcommentary says: 'How do the two truths and the Middle Way discuss things? Because the arising of phenomena is not yet in accord with the dharmatā. Not yet in accord, there is existence; thus this existence is illusory existence; because it is empty, it is conventional. Its insubstantial essence is precisely devoid of characteristics; devoid of characteristics, it is precisely ultimate. The ultimate truth is neither existent nor non-existent, yet non-existent, because it is not illusory existence. Although the conventional is neither existent nor non-existent, it is existent, because it is provisional existence. In relation to things, the entire essence is ultimate, and therefore non-existent; the entire essence is conventional, and therefore not non-existent; thus, neither existent nor non-existent is the single Middle Way of the ultimate and conventional. The ultimate truth is devoid of characteristics, hence neither existent nor non-existent: the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. The conventional truth is the causal designation: the cause is not identical with the fruit, hence non-existent; it is not that it does not produce the fruit, hence not non-existent: this neither existent nor non-existent is the Middle Way of the conventional truth.' Longguang's formulation of the three kinds of Middle Way differs slightly in phrasing from Kaishan's formulation of the three kinds of Middle Way. Master Chao posited two essences, while Master Zang posited one essence; yet their purports are the same, both involving attainment, and in the end they fearfully cannot escape eternity and severance, so they must be refuted one by one. First, refuting the Middle Way of the conventional truth: your Middle Way of causal composition holds that the conventional designation is not identical and one, while the substantial entity is not different and distinct. Let us ask: do 'not different' and 'distinct' use two names to designate two phenomena, or do they designate one phenomenon? If you say that your four dusts are distinct, and 'distinct' refers to the four dusts, then the four dusts in reality have differences; how can you say they are not different and distinct? Can the name 'not different' furthermore be applied to the designation? You say that the conventional designation is non-dual: one name designates the designation and cannot refer to the substantial; the substantial is named non-identical. One only sees two names designating two phenomena; how is this the Middle Way? If two names naming two phenomena is called the Middle Way, then the two names 'general' and 'particular' naming two phenomena should also be the Middle Way, and the two names 'matter' and 'mind' naming two phenomena should also be the Middle Way. If you say that because matter and mind are different they cannot explain the middle, then as the three aggregates constitute a designation, how could designation and substantial explain the Middle Way? If you say that because they mutually constitute each other it is called the Middle Way, then because matter and mind are causally conditioned by each other, one could also discuss the middle. Furthermore, you say that neither identical nor different is the middle: 'not identical' eliminates the four dusts, 'not different' eliminates the conventional designation; eliminating the designation and eliminating the substantial, what is taken as the middle? Eliminating both, there is no thing; one cannot call the great void the middle. Therefore, positing the middle has no place, hence it is a false and empty explanation. Refuting Kaishan's meaning: you say there is existence, and this existence is illusory existence. Since you say illusory existence, there is a phenomenon of illusory existence; how can that be the Middle Way? 'Illusory existence' is simply an alternative name for inverted error; therefore it is not the Middle Way. Furthermore, you say that because the cause is not identical with the fruit it is non-existent, and because it is not that it does not produce the fruit it is not non-existent. As for this 'neither existent nor non-existent is the Middle Way of the conventional truth': what kind of Middle Way is this? Can it not be like child's play? Looking at the middle among the hundred grasses has nothing to do with the middle of the Buddha's Dharma; it is precisely a non-Buddhist doctrine. The Śataśāstra says: 'A disciple of Kapila recited a Sāṃkhya sūtra, saying: "The lump of clay is not identical with the jar, hence non-existent; it is not that it does not make a jar, hence not non-existent; neither existent nor non-existent is the Middle Way."' If so, is this not precisely Sāṃkhya doctrine? Next, refuting the Middle Way of continuity: although there are three explanations of the designation of continuity, what people widely employ is the meaning of the subsequent arising joining with the preceding. Question: impermanence does not abide from thought-moment to thought-moment; how could the preceding transform into the subsequent and the subsequent arise to continue the preceding, making the preceding not cease? They reply: conditioned phenomena have two meanings: first, they cease from thought-moment to thought-moment, without discussing continuity; second, what ought to cease does not cease, discussing the designation of continuity. We now say this is not so. If you say what ought to cease does not cease, then what ought to exist should also not exist.

2.5.2

Yet phenomena are not non-existent; they arise and perish anew at every moment. As the Layman Sūtra says, "Immediate arising is immediate aging, which is immediate dying." How could there be something that should perish yet does not perish? If the entire substance does not perish, who then perishes? If the entire substance perishes, who remains and does not perish? What perishes is constantly perishing from kṣaṇa to kṣaṇa and thought-moment to thought-moment, never not perishing; what does not perish is constantly non-perishing. One only sees two fragments of annihilation and permanence; how can this attain the Middle Way? They claim that one phenomenon possesses these two aspects of perishing and non-perishing, and therefore can elucidate the Middle Way. Now I say this is not so. If one phenomenon has the aspects of perishing and non-perishing, on the side of the aspect of perishing there is not a single phenomenon that does not perish, completely dissolving; where then is the aspect of non-perishing to explain continuity-designation? Furthermore, do you take one phenomenon to be the middle? Or do you take the two designations to be the middle? If the two designations are the middle, what thing do the two designations designate? Do they denote two phenomena? Or do they denote one phenomenon? If the two designations denote two phenomena, one merely sees two designations and two phenomena; how can this be the middle? If the two designations designate one phenomenon, one merely sees two designations upon one phenomenon, like the two designations "pupil" and "eye" upon a child; how can that be the Middle Way? You ask, upon what one phenomenon are the aspects of perishing and non-perishing posited? Posited upon one phenomenon. What kind of thing is this one phenomenon? Is it mind? Is it space? If it is mind, mind is a factual existent, hence it is not the middle. That which should perish and that which does not perish—the two aspects are, moreover, mutually contradictory; hence it is not the middle. If a single designation is termed "middle", just as a single designation "form" designates a single form, it should also be the Middle Way, as before with no difference. In what preceded, where there were two aspects, and the two designations above denoted them, one merely saw two designations designating two aspects and did not see the Middle Way. If both are removed, there is nothing left; when there is nothing, how could it be the middle? Next, in refuting that the conditional designation elucidates the middle, they claim that the causal-formation-designation is the substance, continuity is the function, and conditional designation establishes the designation for phenomena. If they say: because it is conventional it is not real; not real is empty; and matching the principle it is not empty—then does this conventional emptiness match the principle? Matching the principle, therefore it is not empty: on what basis is this said? If they say that non-Buddhists call it empty, hence it is not that [kind of] empty, the other's designation does not properly match the principle, whereas your designation is a conventional emptiness that matches the principle: where then are not-empty and not-real posited? Furthermore, if one explains the middle in terms of long and short, that is also not so. Taking five feet as short and one zhang as long, long exists of itself as long and does not depend on short; short exists of itself as short and does not depend on long. One only sees two fragments, long and short; from where does the name "middle" emerge? If long is long of itself, and long does not require short, one should also just use long to constitute the middle. If it is not so, then two objects together make one length. If two objects share a length, whose length is it definitively? Furthermore, if one says that neither short nor long, neither that nor this, is named the middle, then this becomes: both being removed, there is nothing left; when there is nothing, how can it be named the middle? One should refute this extensively in this manner. Just as chapter by chapter the treatise completely refutes mutual dependence, it naturally appears in the text, as refuted in the "Chapter on the Burning and the Burnable". Next, in refuting the ultimate-truth Middle Way: they claim that the ultimate neither arises nor perishes, is devoid of marks and designations, and therefore a designation is borrowed to name it "ultimate"; it is non-existent yet not non-existent, existent yet not existent, and a designation is borrowed to name it the "Middle Way". Now I say this is not so. If it is said that the ultimate is devoid of designations and a designation is borrowed, naming the ultimate to be the middle, is there that which borrows and that which is borrowed, or not? If there is that which is borrowed, then there is a thing that is named. If there is no that which is borrowed, being neither subject nor object [of borrowing], then there is no ultimate principle, which is identical to wrong views. If it is said that the ultimate is a conventional designation of conventional truth borrowed to designate the ultimate truth, conventional truth is empty and false; what could be the ultimate? "Ultimate" is named real; conventional truth is floating and empty; how can it be named real? Furthermore, ultimate truth transcends designations; why should it need a borrowed designation? If a designation can be borrowed, it should not transcend; if it transcends, it does not need borrowing. Furthermore, when a practitioner seeks the ultimate and attains the ultimate, how can attainment be called the Middle Way? If a designation is borrowed to name the ultimate, and the principle that is borrowed cannot be borrowed, then merely "cannot be borrowed" is a designation; how can it be said to be devoid of designations? If a designation is borrowed to designate the ultimate, and the ultimate principle is devoid of marks and designations, one should also not say that gnosis accords with the ultimate. If the ultimate cannot be accorded with, there is also no person who accords with the ultimate to sever defilements. If it is said that the real principle can be accorded with, then the real principle should also have a designation. If it is said that conventional truth has a middle, while the ultimate principle has neither middle nor non-middle, this is merely the Middle Way of conventional truth. If the ultimate principle lacks the middle, how can one speak of an ultimate-truth Middle Way? Kaishan's fundamental doctrine states that an empty substance is without marks, and being without marks is the ultimate truth: emptiness is the conventional principle, and marklessness is the ultimate principle. Since there are two principles, these are two things; how can this be the Middle Way? Furthermore, the ultimate principle is neither existent nor non-existent, yet non-existent. This non-existence of "yet non-existent" takes non-non-existence as non-existence. Since it says "non-non-existence", how can it be non-existence? If one speaks of the non-existence that is paired with existence, this non-existence is a one-sided non-existence; hence it is not the middle. Next, in refuting the combination of the two truths to explain the Middle Way: they say that conventional truth speaks of non-non-existence and ultimate truth speaks of non-existence, and neither existent nor non-existent are combined to elucidate the Middle Way. Now I say this is not so. Since it speaks of abandoning both, how can it be called the Middle Way? Furthermore, non-non-existence is existence—conventional truth; non-existence is merely ultimate truth's non-existence: two designations in two places. If the two designations and two places are different, how can it be called the Middle Way? Kaishan's fundamental doctrine says: the entire substance is identical to the ultimate, hence not existent; the entire substance is identical to the conventional, hence not non-existent; thus neither existent nor non-existent is the single Middle Way of ultimate and conventional. Now I say this is not so. Since it is said that the entire substance is identical to the ultimate, which is markless and nameless, then the conventional is lost; what thing remains such that one can speak of mutual identity and take neither existent nor non-existent as the Middle Way? Therefore, although there are three kinds of Middle Way, when examined they have no referent and correspond to nothing; hence they are mere words and not the Middle Way of the Buddhadharma. Next, in refuting the Middle Way of the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna: they say, "The ālaya-consciousness is originally unarising and unperishing, constantly fixed from ancient times to the present, having neither beginning nor end." It is only because of violating the real that deluded thoughts arise; thus they say, "The six consciousnesses blaze in distress, accordingly obscuring the ālaya; this is named the tathāgatagarbha. Later, cultivating the understanding of the ten stages, one severs the deluded six consciousnesses stage by stage. Once the six consciousnesses are exhausted, the understanding of deluded thoughts is also removed, manifesting the real to accomplish function; this is named the dharmakāya." It is like the wind rising and clearing the clouds: when the wind ceases, the bright sun shines alone. Once the dharmakāya is manifested, it possesses various adaptive capabilities; therefore, unarising, it manifests arising; unperishing, it manifests perishing; it is neither cause nor effect. Its various functions such as cause and effect are not singular; therefore the sūtra says: "The Buddha's true dharmakāya is like empty space; / adapting to things, it manifests forms like the moon in water." Now I say this is not so. If the dharmakāya is fundamentally existent, by what cause can it be attained?

2.5.3

If it were attained through causes, it would not be fundamentally existing; if it lacked causes, it would be identical to heterodox doctrines. If one says that it is fundamentally existing, why is it called the Middle Way? Furthermore, if this [dharmakāya], free of the four propositions and hundred negations, were originally possessed, the pure Dharma itself ought to dispel inversion; how could it be urgently covered by defilements, such that the understanding of the ten stages cultivated and attained subsequently can still dispel defilements, while the fundamentally eternally settled dharmakāya cannot dispel them, turning out conversely that defilements are cleared away by what has not yet been cultivated and understood? If what is fundamental cannot do so, what is subsequent cannot do so either. Now, the Mahāyāna doctrine of non-attainment explains the three kinds of the Middle Way in terms of the eight negations; although the old and new methods of expression differ, their intent has no divergence. The master of the mountain [Sengquan] formulated this with respect to [the state of] tranquility: speech depends on non-speech, and non-speech depends on speech; speech and non-speech are both dependently co-arisen conventional designations. Therefore, conventional speech is not termed speech, and conventional non-speech is not termed non-speech. Being not termed non-speech does not make it non-existent; being not termed speech does not make it existent—this is the conventional truth Middle Way of neither existent nor non-existent. It is merely a conventional designation through mutual dependence; therefore, where there may be existence, one speaks of arising, and where there may be non-existence, one speaks of cessation; hence arising and cessation together constitute conventional truth. Ultimate truth is also like this: conventional non-speech is not termed non-speech, and conventional non-non-speech is not termed non-non-speech. Being not termed non-non-speech does not make it not non-existent; being not termed non-speech does not make it not existent—this is the ultimate truth Middle Way of neither not existent nor not non-existent. Because it is a conventional designation through mutual dependence, where there may be existence, one speaks of non-cessation, and where there may be non-existence, one speaks of non-arising; this is neither arising nor cessation, and hence they are combined as ultimate truth. As for explaining the Middle Way through combining the two truths: conventional speech is not termed speech, and conventional non-speech is not termed non-speech; being neither speech nor non-speech is simply being neither existent nor not existent, neither non-existent nor not non-existent—this is explaining the Middle Way by combining the two truths. Explaining by combining arising and cessation with non-arising and non-cessation can be understood analogously to this. Now we clarify that it must arise in opposition to the other: if the other possesses an existence that can be existent, then there is an arising that can arise, and a cessation that can cease. If there is an arising that can arise, arising is definitely arising; if there is a cessation that can cease, cessation is definitely cessation. Arising is definitely arising; arising lies outside cessation. Cessation is definitely cessation; cessation lies outside arising. Arising lies outside cessation, so arising does not depend on cessation; cessation lies outside arising, so cessation does not depend on arising. Arising does not depend on cessation, so arising subsists alone; cessation does not depend on arising, so cessation stands in isolation. Such arising and cessation are all intrinsic nature, not the thesis of dependent co-arising. Now, it is not so: there is no existence that can be existent, because of emptiness there is existence; there is no arising that can arise, nor is there any cessation that can cease. It is only because of conventional truth that one conventionally designates and speaks of arising and cessation. As conventional arising, arising is not definitely arising; as conventional cessation, cessation is not definitely cessation. Arising is not definitely arising, so outside of cessation there is no arising; cessation is not definitely cessation, so outside of arising there is no cessation. Outside of cessation there is no arising, so because of cessation there is arising; outside of arising there is no cessation, so because of arising there is cessation. Because of cessation there is arising, so arising does not subsist alone; because of arising there is cessation, so cessation does not stand in isolation. Such arising and cessation are entirely conventional designations of dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising arises, yet arising does not occur, and therefore it does not arise; dependent co-arising ceases, yet ceasing does not perish, and therefore it does not cease; hence non-arising and non-cessation are called the conventional truth Middle Way. The remaining phrases can be understood by analogy and need not be fully set forth. Next, we clarify that in opposition to the existence of arising and cessation in conventional truth, it is called the non-arising and non-cessation of ultimate truth. Therefore, emptiness and existence serve as conventional truth, with conventional arising and conventional cessation; existence and emptiness serve as ultimate truth, with conventional non-arising and conventional non-cessation. This non-arising and non-cessation is not inherently non-arising and non-cessation; depending on the conventional arising and cessation of conventional truth, one clarifies the conventional non-arising and non-cessation of ultimate truth. Since the conventional arising and cessation of conventional truth are neither arising nor cessation, the conventional non-arising and non-cessation of ultimate truth are also neither non-arising nor non-cessation; hence neither non-arising nor non-cessation is the ultimate truth Middle Way. The remaining phrases can be known without analogy. Next, to clarify the Middle Way combining the two truths: existence serves as conventional truth, having arising and having cessation; emptiness serves as ultimate truth, being non-arising and non-cessation. This non-arising and non-cessation is itself the non-arising and non-cessation of arising and cessation; this arising and cessation is itself the arising and cessation of non-arising and non-cessation. The arising and cessation of non-arising and non-cessation is therefore not arising and cessation; the non-arising and non-cessation of arising and cessation is therefore not non-arising and non-cessation. Therefore, neither arising and cessation nor non-arising and non-cessation is the Middle Way explained by combining the two truths. Since arising and cessation are thus, the remaining phrases should be understood by analogy. Furthermore, the treatise explains neither permanence nor annihilation, the text stating: 'There are people who do not accept neither arising nor cessation, yet believe in neither permanence nor annihilation.' The Tattvasiddhi masters explain the text saying: because of continuity there is permanence, and momentary arising and cessation without regard for oneself is annihilation. Because they see annihilation and permanence, they do not believe in neither permanence nor annihilation. This must be broadly refuted, as discussed before. Regarding the treatise's statement, 'There are people who do not accept neither arising nor cessation yet believe in neither permanence nor annihilation': One explanation says: 'not accepting neither arising nor cessation' means awakening to neither arising nor cessation. Yet, because they have not yet awakened to neither permanence nor annihilation, etc., it says, 'yet believe in neither permanence nor annihilation' because they see the existence of annihilation and permanence. The second explanation says: Master Ying of Chang'an says that it is not that they do not believe in neither permanence nor annihilation, but merely that different people attain awakening differently and their understanding mind is not yet pervasive; although they know that all phenomena are neither arising nor ceasing, they have not yet awakened to neither permanence nor annihilation, as discussed before. We now say that all phenomena are ultimately non-arising, and by principle naturally do not cease. Because they do not arise, how could there be permanence? Because there is no permanence, how could there be annihilation? If judged against the text of the treatise, the latter explanation is superior. The text says: 'Although they hear of neither arising nor cessation and neither permanence nor annihilation, they still say that the four gates constitute all phenomena.' By analogy, although they hear of neither arising nor cessation, those who still say that the six gates constitute all phenomena have not awakened. Therefore, the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra*, 'Chapter on Signs and Practice', states: 'One does not accept practice, nor does one accept non-practice; one does not accept practice and non-practice, nor does one accept neither practice nor non-practice; non-acceptance also is not accepted.' Again, it resembles the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, 'Chapter on the Worthies and Nobles', which says: 'One who knows non-action does not believe in action and the like; such a one is called a superior person.' As for neither permanence nor annihilation: if one takes existence to be existent, then permanence is real permanence, and annihilation is real annihilation. Now, because of emptiness there is existence; permanence is not termed permanence, and annihilation is not termed annihilation. Conventional truth conventionally designates and speaks of having permanence and having annihilation. Conventional permanence cannot be permanent, and conventional annihilation cannot be annihilated; this is the conventional truth Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence. As for neither unity nor difference: 'not one' can perhaps be opposed to two, up to a hundred or a thousand. Yet the reason it is said in opposition to 'not different' is that outside of the different and the one, two, three, and so forth are all difference; this refers to having unity and difference. However, the Tattvasiddhi masters clarify that conventional and real have the meaning of unity and difference.

2.5.4

If being exists through being, that is real oneness or difference, as refuted before. Also, as the treatise says: 'If it is said that there is oneness, it should not be formed of various phenomena, because it is not one. Just as various parts such as hands and feet form a body, how can one speak of a different mark?' A different mark is also unobtainable; therefore the treatise refutes it, saying: 'If it were one, there should be no distinction of sprout, stalk, and so forth. If one says that grain has differences such as sprout and leaf, since these are equally different marks, why are they not called the sprout and leaf of a tree, etc.? Hence we know they are not different.' Nor are they one; therefore all phenomena are originally unborn—how could there be oneness and difference? Rather, oneness is the oneness of non-oneness; difference is the difference of non-difference. Conventional oneness cannot be taken as oneness; conventional difference cannot be taken as difference. Since there is neither oneness nor difference, this is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Regarding 'neither coming nor going forth' (pu lai pu chu): since it says 'neither coming', it ought to be paired with 'nor going away' (pu qu). That it says 'nor going forth' is because the meaning embraces more—it is not limited to these eight, but should be immeasurable. 'Neither coming' ought to be paired with 'not going away'; 'nor going forth' ought to be paired with 'not entering'. These are mutually mentioned, that is all. In general there are two meanings: First, to show that more is embraced and not limited to eight matters. Second, though they differ, what is inwardly embraced is: since there is 'neither coming', there is 'nor going away'; since there is 'nor going forth', there is 'nor entering'. 'Neither arising nor ceasing', 'neither existence nor non-existence', and so forth, are approaches of mutually subsuming all phenomena. As held by the Tattvasiddhi and non-Buddhist teachers, etc., who say that they come from the primordial darkness (prakṛti), from subtle atoms, from world-nature, and so forth; or like the first flowing water turning back, going forth, and departing. Now the Mahāyāna clarifies the meaning: because of going forth, there is going away—going forth is just going away; because of entering, there is coming—entering is just coming. If there were coming and going, and one spoke of making coming and going, that would be real coming and real going. Now it is clarified that because of emptiness there is coming and going; hence it is not called coming and going. Through conventional truth, coming and going are conventionally spoken of: although coming, there can be no coming; although going, there can be no going. Therefore, coming has no place whence it comes, and going has no place whither it goes. Therefore the Diamond Prajñā Sūtra says: 'If someone says that the Tathāgata comes or goes, this person does not understand the meaning of what the Buddha taught.' If one says that because of emptiness coming and going are spoken of, then coming has no place whence it comes, and going has no place whither it goes; therefore he is called Tathāgata. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Addressing Mañjuśrī, he said: "Coming through the mark of not coming; seeing through the mark of not seeing." Mañjuśrī replied: "It is as the upāsaka says. Coming does not come again; going does not go again."' If coming had a place whence it comes, then having come it would come again; if going had a place whither it goes, then having gone it would go again. Therefore now coming has no place whence it comes, and going has no place whither it goes. Hence the treatise says: 'Like a snake emerging from a hole, a bird coming to roost in a tree, and so forth.' One does not see such marks; hence we know there is neither coming nor going forth. Question: Why is it said that in the eight negations, 'neither coming nor going forth' subsumes phenomena and embraces more, while 'neither arising nor ceasing' and so forth do not? Answer: 'Neither arising nor ceasing' and so forth are also subsumptive of phenomena. For example, 'not arising' completely subsumes all existent arising and so forth; 'not ceasing' gathers all cessation and non-existence, and so forth. These two are self-sufficient, gathering and subsuming completely. But because those who attain awakening are not all the same—though they hear 'neither arising nor ceasing', they have faith in 'neither eternal nor annihilated'—it is therefore necessary to speak of 'neither eternal nor annihilated', desiring to make contemplation and practice comprehensive. Now, 'neither coming nor going forth' is also like this; that it is spoken of as subsuming phenomena is because 'not coming' should be paired with 'not going', and 'going forth' is paired with 'entering'. Since coming and going forth are not paired, therefore by 'coming' it subsumes 'going', and by 'going forth' it subsumes 'entering'. Since arising and ceasing are already paired, because of being paired it is not said that they subsume. Just as outside of 'not arising', is it not so that 'not not-arising' must be subsumed? One must grasp this intention in explaining it, and it can be pursued. However, clarifying 'pairing' has two meanings: First, counteractive pairing (pratipakṣa), such as contemplation on impurity counteracting greed and desire, or loving-kindness and compassion counteracting anger and hatred, etc.—these are all clarifying the meaning of pairing through mutual counteraction. Second, relative pairing, where names and connotations directly confront each other, as the Great Sūtra says: 'Constantly delight in observing the gates of all counteragents, namely suffering and pleasure, up to permanent and impermanent.' 'Permanent' should be paired with 'not temporary and not permanent', yet it is not without broad and narrow senses; this is also the intention of subsuming phenomena. The paired meaning of suffering and pleasure is narrow, clarifying only two phenomena; outside of what is different, it is not subsumed in this way. If one speaks of the difference between suffering and non-suffering, outside of suffering it is non-suffering in this way, so the subsumptive meaning is broad and far-reaching. Just as with pure and impure, pure paired with defiled, and so forth—all are analogous to this, and all have broad and narrow senses that can be pursued; there is no need to examine each phenomenon again. In formulating the three kinds of Middle Way, the aspects have multiple tendencies, but the intent in the end is identical; it is merely that regional expressions differ. Formulating them through the two kinds of method now is as spoken before. Question: Why is it that in conventional truth there is conventional arising and conventional ceasing, while in ultimate truth there is conventional non-arising and conventional non-ceasing? Answer: There are two tendencies. First, conventional truth refutes intrinsic nature to clarify the emptiness of intrinsic nature, which is conventional arising and conventional ceasing; ultimate truth refutes the conventional to clarify emptiness of dependent co-arising, which is conventional non-arising and conventional non-ceasing. Question: Conventional truth refutes intrinsic nature to clarify the emptiness of intrinsic nature, taking emptiness of intrinsic nature as the Middle Way of conventional truth, so it should use existence of intrinsic nature as conventional truth. Since it takes conventional existence as conventional truth, it then uses conventional emptiness as the Middle Way. Answer: We now clarify that there is no separate emptiness of intrinsic nature; it merely names the conventional as the emptiness of intrinsic nature, taking its name from its function. What is able to empty this intrinsic nature? The conventional is able to empty this intrinsic nature, so the conventional is named the emptiness of intrinsic nature. On the side of the emptiness of intrinsic nature, it is therefore the Middle Way; on the side of being conventional, it is therefore named conventional truth. Second, conventional arising and conventional ceasing are themselves the Middle of non-arising and non-ceasing; conventional non-arising and conventional non-ceasing are themselves the Middle of neither non-arising nor non-ceasing—this is expressing the meaning. But viewing the two horizontally across from each other is itself the meaning of dependent co-arising, which dispels the two attachments. Furthermore, the master of Sheling said: clarifying the Middle before the conventional is the Middle of substance; clarifying the Middle after the conventional is the Middle of function. Clarifying the conventional before the Middle is the conventional of function; clarifying the conventional after the Middle is the conventional of substance. Therefore, being neither existent nor non-existent yet existent and non-existent is the Middle of substance; conventional existence not being called existence and conventional non-existence not being called non-existence, hence being neither existent nor non-existent, is the Middle of function. Being neither existent nor non-existent yet existent and non-existent is the conventional of substance; conventional existence not being called existence and conventional non-existence not being called non-existence is the conventional of function. Therefore, both the functional Middle and the functional conventional belong to the teaching that is capable of expressing; that which has neither conventional nor Middle is the principle that is expressed.

2.6

Third, explaining the Middle Way of wisdom. What is called the Middle Way of the two gnoses: the two gnoses are expedient wisdom and real wisdom; they also possess the three kinds of Middle Way. If the real is expedient, how could one say it is expedient? How could one say it is not expedient? If the expedient is real, how could one say it is real? How could one say it is not real? These are the two wisdoms each explaining the Middle Way. If the real is expedient, then it is not expedient; if the expedient is real, then it is not real. Neither real nor expedient is termed the Middle Way jointly explained by the two wisdoms. Moreover, neither real nor expedient is termed the single correct contemplation; neither ultimate nor conventional is termed the single correct middle, which may also be the correct cognitive object. Therefore the Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra says, 'roaming in the immeasurable, profound Dharma-nature.' When there is only cognitive object and gnosis, this is non-gnosis; once it is the gnosis's cognitive object, this is non-cognitive object. Neither gnosis nor cognitive object, vast and boundless. Although previously cognitive object and gnosis were distinguished, in the end there was nothing distinguished; although now gnosis and cognitive object are obliterated, they were never merged. If one can expound in this way, one is able to extinguish all proliferation; also, there is [the Buddha] who is able to teach this dependent co-arising, and for this reason Nāgārjuna pays homage. Question: Why not follow the analogy of the three kinds of Middle Way of the two truths—conventional expedient gnosis is not expedient gnosis, conventional real gnosis is not real gnosis, neither expedient nor real explains the Middle Way; conventional non-expedient gnosis is not non-expedient gnosis, conventional non-real gnosis is not non-real gnosis, neither non-expedient nor non-real gnosis jointly explains the Middle Way, and so forth? Answer: That is also permissible, but [the author] only wishes to show a variety of approaches. Furthermore, explaining the Middle Way of the two gnoses: the truth and gnosis are neither prior nor posterior, nor are they simultaneous; hence neither truth nor gnosis. By dependent co-arising of truth and gnosis, conventional designations are non-dual yet dual. Thus the Tathāgata's inner gnosis is luminous and precise, silently planning and secretly illuminating, while outwardly manifested and spoken from the mouth it is called truth. Yet the truth is not two, nor is it one truth; it is said to be two because of these two conditions, as explained under the two truths. Since gnosis is what can investigate the truth, by what cause is this gnosis attained? It is also born from awakening to the truth; hence the truth is the agent and gnosis is the object. The dependent co-arising of agent and object is neither one nor two, and so on up to responding to prajñā, this agent and object pervade throughout. If the Buddha is the self-arisen person, then the Buddha's gnosis is the agent and the truth is the object. If a disciple looks toward this, the Buddha's truth is the agent and the treatise master's gnosis is the object. Yet how could this agent and object be fixed? When gnosis arises from the cognitive object and relies on the truth, it is the cognitive object. The treatise master's gnosis can illuminate, and the cognitive object is what is illuminated, but this truth is the treatise master's object. The Buddha is neither cause nor fruit, yet the Tathāgata is designated as fruit. Prajñā is neither cause nor fruit, yet it is conventionally designated as cause. Thus the distinctions established by conventional designation are diverse: sometimes termed the forbearance with beings, forbearance with phenomena, conformable forbearance, contrary forbearance, forbearance with the unborn, and so forth. The ten grounds are also called the ten forbearances; the thirty minds are also called the thirty forbearances; this is the one as immeasurable, the immeasurable as one, and so on. Furthermore, when the two truths explain the Middle Way, the dependent co-arising of truth and gnosis is neither one nor two, nor is it prior or posterior; yet for the sake of previous conditions, the expedient teachings of prior and posterior dependent co-arising are established. If there were no inner luminous and precise gnosis that outwardly illuminates capacities and conditions, how could one utter this truth? Hence gnosis is the agent, and truth is the object. But the Buddha's gnosis is not empty, and must depend on the truth; hence arising from the truth, truth is the agent and gnosis is the object. This treatise master merely awakened to the truth as agent being the object of gnosis, and what is seen by gnosis as object is the truth as agent; agent and object are neither one nor different. Since the two truths discuss the Middle Way, when in gnosis it is also called the Middle Way; encountering anything, it is always obtained. But prajñā is neither cause nor fruit, neither Buddha nor bodhisattva; hence Buddha and bodhisattva are conventional designations. What is practiced by Buddhas and bodhisattvas is called cause, called prajñā. What is practiced by bodhisattvas and Buddhas is called fruit, called sarvajñā. Therefore, within the non-differentiated there are differentiations, speaking of the cause as the ten grounds, beginning with Joy and ending in the Cloud of Dharma; the five forbearances and thirty minds are not a vertical progression. When it comes to discussing prajñā, it cannot be designated by words; it is neither agent nor object. Practiced in the ultimate truth, it is what is practiced by the non-learners, what all Buddhas are able to practice. Practicing is not grasped; not practicing is not grasped; both practicing and not practicing are not grasped; neither practicing nor not practicing is not grasped; not grasping is also not grasped. 'Able to teach this dependent co-arising' directly clarifies the Middle Way of the two gnoses. The one able to teach is the Buddha's gnosis, able to teach the correct doctrine of the eight negations in dependent co-arising. It is also said: this treatise master, receiving the Buddha's correct sūtras, gave rise to gnosis; gnosis was the object, and the truth was the agent. The treatise master attained awakening and gave rise to gnosis; gnosis was the agent, and the treatise was the object, because he was able to compose the treatise to expound the sūtras. The Buddha and the treatise master, master and disciple completing each other, have no difference in their Path; this is entering the Tathāgata's room and sitting on the Tathāgata's seat. The treatise master pays homage because the Buddha was able to teach the correct sūtras of dependent co-arising, and by receiving and studying them he attained understanding; the understanding was due to the Buddha. Now expounding the sūtras and composing the treatise, he pays homage to the Three Jewels, distinct from the non-Buddhists. As for the sūtras of dependent co-arising, the sūtra is constant, having nowhere from which it emerges. 'Foremost among all teachings': although the Tathāgata taught the Dharma in various ways and constantly taught the Hīnayāna teaching in accord with the Path, these were not yet definitive words, but were the gradual steps toward the Mahāyāna. The eight negations are the explicit and ultimate teaching; therefore the eight negations encompass and exhaust everything. All Buddhas share this same consistency; hence it is said to be foremost. Furthermore, what is spoken by disciples of the Buddha, by ṛṣis, by devas, and by apparitional beings is not yet foremost; now the Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising is spoken, hence it is said to be foremost. In the Middle Way of the two gnoses, gnosis is due to truth; in the Middle Way of the two truths, truth is due to gnosis. Therefore truth is gnosis, gnosis is truth, neither truth nor gnosis, conventionally designated the Middle Way. The Buddha's intention of provisional and real is dependent co-arising, as stated earlier. Some also say: the treatise master was able to teach, giving rise to the subsequent treatise. The present [view] does not contradict these words either, but now we say it praises the Buddha's gnosis, luminous and precise, discerning capacities and conditions, able to utter this correct teaching of the eight negations of the two truths, clarifying that all phenomena in dependent co-arising are purely of a single path, so that the gates of proliferation are exhausted. Hence, stated as a treatise, its meaning can be clear. Therefore it reveals that the Buddha's perfect gnosis can speak words of sincere truth; hence it is gnosis and it is truth. Therefore Nāgārjuna learned what the Buddha did; his gnosis was not yet complete, so the names of gnosis and truth were submerged. Prior to responding to prajñā, whatever is undertaken is nothing other than proliferation; if one understands the essence of the teaching and the principle, one can extinguish proliferation. What is practiced by the minds of ordinary persons and the two vehicles is nothing other than proliferation; minds practicing outside principle are nothing other than proliferation, which ought to be extinguished and diminished. Generally there are three kinds of contrast, or sometimes four kinds. First, the contrast between good and evil. Evil is downfall; running contrary to principle, it has no merit of transcendence, so the ten unwholesome deeds are proliferation. Good is pure elevation; supporting principle, it has the meaning of transcendence, so the ten wholesome deeds are not proliferation. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra also says, 'The four attachments such as oneness are proliferation.' It also says, 'Among the three natures, good and evil are not proliferation; the indeterminate is proliferation.' Why? The two natures of good and evil have fruits that can be recorded, so they are not proliferation. The indeterminate is superficial and weak, having no efficacy in attaining fruit, so it is called proliferation. Now, relying on the Avataṃsakasūtra, only good is non-proliferation, while evil and the indeterminate are both proliferation. Clarifying that evil also obtains the fruit of suffering, yet because it does not head toward and take refuge in principle to attain buddhahood, it is called proliferation. Only wholesome dharmas can attain the fruit of buddhahood; hence the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says, 'Even a thousand catties of piled flowers do not equal one ounce of pure gold.' Second, explaining it by the contrast between possessing marks and lacking marks, also termed the contrast between defiled and undefiled. Possessing marks is conceptual discrimination, hence proliferation; lacking marks has no conceptual discrimination, hence non-proliferation. Wholesomeness with marks still belongs to proliferation; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says, 'Wholesomeness with marks does not move and does not transcend; it is not a vehicle.' Therefore the Buddhapiṭaka-sūtra says, 'Teaching dharmas with marks for people is being an evil friend to sentient beings. Teaching dharmas without marks for sentient beings is being a good friend to sentient beings.' Possessing marks runs contrary to principle, so the sūtra says, 'Rather give rise to a single thought of the five heinous crimes than give rise to a mind possessing marks.' The reason the sūtra makes this statement is to clarify that a mind with marks damages principle greatly, and that is why it is severe; in reality both transgressions are entirely severe. But as for giving rise to the five heinous crimes, the five heinous crimes only harm the body without obstructing the mental function from approaching the meaning of principle. Because a mind with marks damages principle, it has no approach to the meaning of principle; thus a monk who seeks wholesomeness with marks is far removed from the Buddha. Therefore, when a mind with marks is present, there is definitely no meaning of prajñā; although an act of the five heinous crimes may arise, it does not obstruct the application of mind from seeing the meaning of principle. Defiled is possessing marks, while undefiled is lacking marks. Defiled wholesomeness only obtains the retributions of the three realms of existence, unable to transcend birth-and-death; this is precisely not moving and not transcending, so it is called proliferation. Undefiled dharmas rupture birth-and-death, so they are not called proliferation. Furthermore, masters of the Daśabhūmika, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Tattvasiddhi, and Abhidharma, fearing they would fall under the school of monks seeking wholesomeness with marks, were terrified on hearing this, yet listened to the Mahāyāna school of non-attainment. People have seen this meaning; those masters and disciples had no awareness of this meaning. Third, the contrast between oneness and difference. Although it is said that possessing marks is proliferation and lacking marks is non-proliferation, if possessing marks is different from lacking marks, that is proliferation; only when seeing that marks and lack of marks are not different is it called non-proliferation. So too by analogy with good and evil, birth-and-death, nirvāṇa, understanding and delusion, and so forth. Therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says, 'Light and ignorance: the ordinary person deems them two; the wise comprehend that their nature is non-dual.' Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra's Chapter on the Three Wisdoms says, 'Whatever has duality is called attainment; what has no duality is called non-attainment.' Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says, 'Those with attainment have neither Path nor fruit; those of non-attainment have Path and fruit.' If one takes difference as wrong and non-duality as right, this fails to recognize non-duality and turns back into proliferation. It must again be eliminated, because there is neither oneness nor duality. Sometimes, in terms of four dharmas, distinguishing practicing the catuṣkoṭi as proliferation, and not practicing the catuṣkoṭi as non-proliferation. Therefore the Fan zhe lun says, 'If one says all dharmas exist, this is the slander of superimposition. If one says all dharmas do not exist, this is the slander of deprecation. If one says all dharmas both exist and do not exist, this is the slander of contradiction. If one says all dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent, this is the slander of proliferation. If one says all dharmas are not non-existent and not not-non-existent, this is the slander of shamelessness.' Therefore the Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchāsūtra says, 'All dharmas are wrong; all dharmas are right.' Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says, 'A bodhisattva without expedients who practices impermanence, suffering, and so forth in form is entirely in proliferation.' Therefore, whenever there is an aspiring mind of attainment, it is in confused conflict with prajñā, and is a master of proliferation. Hence within the gate of dependent co-arising, oneness cannot be apprehended, duality also cannot be apprehended, both one and two, neither one nor two, and neither not-one nor not-two, all cannot be apprehended. Like the five-phrase samādhi, it is a vast functioning not shared with the two vehicles. Therefore, these four contrasts to these three have neither transcendence nor departure. Why? Wherever there is attainment, there is a separate dwelling place in terms of which transcendence is discussed. Now we say: fundamentally there is no dwelling, and now also neither transcendence nor dwelling; having no transcendence, it is not proliferation. If one says there is proliferation that can be extinguished and that is non-proliferation, that too is proliferation. Because it too is proliferation, now it is explained that the eight negations are non-proliferation: not only is proliferation extinguished, but non-proliferation is also extinguished. Extinction is not the extinction of the abandonment-virtue of the Hīnayāna; this is the Mahāyāna's pure awakening that all dharmas are originally unborn and now also unextinguished, ultimately pure, which is called extinction, and is therefore called good. Hence proliferation and non-proliferation discussed together are complete in dependent co-arising, expedient conventional designations, neither one nor two, equal in the single Path. The good of proliferation is skillful provisional practice, hence called good; 'good' means capable. Question: Proliferation, non-proliferation, and so forth are all extinguished; that is, what was previously clarified regarding recorded, indeterminate, up to dual, non-dual, good, evil, and so forth are all rejected when looked at from the Path. Since proliferation is rejected, non-proliferation is also proliferation. Answer: One must understand this. Only the non-dual goodness of the eight negations is non-proliferation; if non-duality turns back into proliferation, it does not mean non-duality is non-proliferation. Unless one applies the negation of the eight negations, proliferation is not extinguished. How is this different from cutting off cutting-off, and cutting off non-cutting-off, so that there is neither cutting off nor non-cutting-off? How could one speak in words of cutting off and non-cutting-off?

First 9 of 15 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘玄論 — Classical Chinese