大乘玄論 2.6

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?