大乘玄論 2.9

2.9

Sixth, examining [the phrase] "not-being being" (不有有). If one understands the various propositions of single and complex, one then understands the meaning of "not-being being." If one does not understand the single and complex, "not-being being" is also difficult to understand; hence it must be analyzed extensively. This meaning is explained in relation to the main tenets of two great sūtras: one sūtra takes "having no existence" as its tenet, thus a sūtra says: "The jewel-city of the True Dharma is well-existent." One sūtra takes "existing what is absent" as its tenet, thus the *Dapin [bore jing]*, fascicle 3, "Chapter on Practice of Signs," says: "Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: 'How is the true mark of all phenomena existent?' The Buddha said: 'All phenomena have no existence, yet are thus existent; being thus, they have no existence. Not knowing this matter is called ignorance.'" If "not-being being" is explained from correlative perspectives, there are sixteen meanings.

The first [meaning of] "not-being being": this clarifies that the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, yet it concludes as existent; hence it is called "not-being being." However, this only concludes that the correct Way is existent, without discussing its function, because its substance has no dual marks. If it is concluded as existent, it cannot be concluded as non-existent; if concluded as non-existent, it cannot be concluded as existent. This is concluding a single exclusive sense. It merely says [the Way] is neither existent nor non-existent, not that it is existent, yet it concludes as existent; hence it is called "not-being being." Regarding "not-non-being non-being" (不無無), it is analogous.

The second [meaning of] "not-being being": it is clarified in terms of the conventional. The conventional existence of the three conventionals is precisely "not-being being." Other [schools'] conventional existence is existent because of being existent; our present conventional existence is "not-being being."

The third [meaning of] "not-being being": the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, yet sideways it produces a single existent function; hence it is called "not-being being." Now, the Way is neither existent nor non-existent, and when arising function, it ought to arise both [existence and non-existence] together; yet it only arises a single function; hence it is called "sideways-produced." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The fourth [meaning of] "not-being being": this clarifies that the conventional existence of function is not [real] existence; hence it is called "not-being." Concluding the function to return to substance, because substance is existent, now it is called "not-being being." This is different from the previous speaking of "not-being being" in terms of substance, and also different from the third where the substance of not-being is existent and arises an existent function; this merely uses "not" uniquely to designate function, and because function is not existent while substance is existent, it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is analogous to this.

The fifth [meaning of] "not-being being": it is for the sake of refuting the attachment to existence. Those who are attached claim that existence is existence, not knowing that not-being is existence. Now, the refutation clarifies that existence is non-existence; hence existence is rather "not-being being." This is using existence to refute existence; however, that which can refute is "not-being being," and that which is refuted is "existent existence" (有有). Regarding "not-non-being non-being," it is analogous.

The sixth [meaning of] "not-being being": it is for the sake of refuting the attachment to non-existence. They grasp phenomena as non-existent, and now we refute it with "not-being being." If one were to refute non-existence with "existent existence," this would be an opposing thesis, so the attachment would not be removed. Now, refuting non-existence with "not-being being," non-existence can be removed; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The seventh [meaning of] "not-being being": refuting all existence. Whether it is "existent existence" or "not-being being," all are negated uniquely with "not," hence it is called "not-being"; yet arising all existent functions, taking whether "existent existence" or "not-being being" as function, together it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous: negating all non-existence uniquely with "not," it is called "not-non-being"; yet arising all non-existence as function, together it is "not-non-being non-being."

The eighth [meaning of] "not-being being": advancing further to clarify the meaning. It clarifies that "not-being" negates all existence and all non-existence, uniting with emptiness; hence it is called "not-being"; yet arising all existence and all non-existence as function, together it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this: "not-non-being" negates all existence and non-existence with "not," hence it is called "not-non-being"; yet arising all existence and non-existence, it is called "not-non-being non-being." However, arising all existent and non-existent functions, this function ought to be existent—how can it be said to be non-existent? Now, speaking in reference to the root: this existence and non-existence arises [from] neither-existence-nor-non-existence; therefore this existence and non-existence is precisely non-existent. Furthermore, whatever arises from another is devoid of substance, so it is non-existent.

The ninth [meaning of] "not-being being": clarifying the meaning through the horizontal gate. Not-being is intrinsically existent; taking non-existence as existence, it is therefore called "not-being being." Since it takes non-existence as existence, it takes not-being as existence; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous: taking existence as non-existence, it is called "not-non-being non-being."

The tenth [meaning of] "not-being being": merely negating this grasping of "existent existence" uniquely with "not," it is called "not-being being." This is different from previously combining the use of "not-being being" to refute "existent existence," and also different from previously negating all existence uniquely with "not" to unite with non-existence so as to arise all existence and non-existence, calling it "not-being being." Now it merely employs a single "not" uniquely to negate this grasping of "existent existence," causing it to be exhausted without letting it arise; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The eleventh [meaning of] "not-being being": combined, it clarifies eight complete senses. What are the eight senses? 1. "Not-being being" pertains to non-existence; 2. "Not-being being" pertains to non-non-existence; 3. "Not-being being" pertains to neither-both-existence-nor-non-existence; 4. "Not-being being" pertains to neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence; 5. "Not-being being" pertains to existence; 6. "Not-being being" pertains to non-existence; 7. "Not-being being" pertains to both existence and non-existence; 8. "Not-being being" pertains to neither existence nor non-existence. Why? First, as it says "not-being being," how could it be existence? Because it is not existence, it pertains to non-existence. Second, "not-being being" is not non-existence, so it pertains to non-non-existence. Third, since "not-being being" is neither existence nor non-existence, it does not pertain to both existence and non-existence; hence it is said to pertain to neither-both-existence-nor-non-existence. Fourth, "not-being being" does not pertain to neither existence nor non-existence; hence it is said to pertain to neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Yet "not-being being" ought to pertain to the two propositions of existence and non-existence—how could it be neither existence nor non-existence? Hence it is said to be neither-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Fifth, "not-being being" pertains to existence: taking not-being as existence, how is it not existence? Sixth, "not-being being" pertains to non-existence: merely taking not-being as existence, viewed from the root, it is precisely non-existence. Seventh, "not-being being" pertains to both existence and non-existence: since it clarifies both not-being and being together, how is it not both existence and non-existence? Eighth, "not-being being" pertains to neither existence nor non-existence: "not-being being" is not named existence, and "not-being being" is not named non-existence; hence it is named neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, within this single section, eight senses are clarified together; precisely because the eight senses follow a sequence, there is no need to clarify them separately. The previous ten sections, however, could not be stated together, so they were distinguished separately. "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The twelfth [meaning], clarifying the concurrent function of "not-being being": because of "not-being being," it is free from the fault of annihilationism. Why? If there were not-being and no further being, that might be annihilationism; but now there is not-being being, so it is free from the fault of annihilationism. It is also free from the fault of eternalism: if one took existence as existence, that might be the fault of eternalism; but now one merely takes not-being as existence, so it is free from the fault of eternalism. In this way, faults such as identity and difference, existence and non-existence, right and wrong, contact and separation, are all avoided. "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The thirteenth [meaning], "not-being being" as subsuming all phenomena: "not-being being" subsumes attainment of causes, attainment of results, and all phenomena; hence it is called "not-being being." "Not-non-being non-being" is also like this.

The fourteenth [meaning], "not-being being" analogized to all phenomena: since "not-being being" possesses the above ten senses, eight senses, mutual benefit, mutual subsumption, etc., so too does "not-cause cause" and "not-result result." In this way, "not-permanent permanent," "not-arising arising," etc.—though a single phenomenon, each possesses the above meanings; therefore it can be said that within one, one understands the immeasurable, and within the immeasurable, one understands the one. When errors arise in succession in this way, one with true gnosis is fearless.

The fifteenth [meaning], the sense of gain and loss in "not-being being": as when tested with a question in the sūtra, answering: "All phenomena are not-being, being" constitutes gain, and immediately possesses five meanings: 1. gaining the meaning of non-duality; 2. gaining the meaning of conventional designation not from itself; 3. gaining the meaning of mutual relativity; 4. gaining the meaning of the emptiness of non-attainment; 5. gaining the meaning of the Middle Way. If the respondent says that all phenomena are existent as existent, they immediately lose the five meanings; hence "not-being being" judges the meaning of the Way and what is not the Way. "Not-non-being non-being" is also analogous.

The sixteenth [meaning], clarifying the meaning of "not-being being" through the separate gate: previously we spoke of "not-being being" combined; now at times one must simply state "not-being" alone, and at times one must simply state "being" alone. Now here, simply stating "not-being" alone: this is done to clarify the meaning of being. Why? Because I negate this existence with "not," and do not negate this non-existence with "not"; hence not-being comes to be existence. If one negated non-existence with "not," it could be made into non-existence. But now, because of negating existence with "not," not-being is simply existence. This matter is like the explanation in the Hīnayāna: form is simply good, and it cannot be that this form is not good; hence one obtains the meaning that not-being is existence. Obtaining this meaning, hearing of refutation one is not terrified, receiving rebuke one is not angry, and so on. Next, stating "being" conversely becomes the meaning of refuting being. Why? I originally state "being" in order to refute being; just as people in the world cannot tolerate evil and so speak of "evil"—does not this word "evil" cause that evil to be eliminated? Now with "being" it is also like this: I cannot tolerate this being and so speak of "being"—does this not refute it? Furthermore, simply stating "being" without speaking of the dependent co-arising of being is precisely the meaning of refuting being. Stating "non-being" alone is also like this. Next, stating "being" alone is precisely the Middle Way; it cannot be said that only being-not-being is the Middle Way. Why? Simply stating "being": this is not non-being, nor is it existent existence. Since this being is neither existent existence nor non-being, is it not the Middle Way? Furthermore, upon being there naturally exists right and wrong; I simply state "being," neither stating its right nor stating its wrong; hence this being is free from right and wrong, and therefore is the Middle Way. If [one objects that] although being is free from right and wrong, there is still this being, so it is not the Middle Way—if your Middle Way, although free from existence and non-existence, has this middle and can thereby be the Middle Way, what prevents my being, being free from right and wrong, from thereby being the Middle Way? Moreover, since I simply state "being," and also do not say that there is this being, knowing that there is no such being, it is therefore said to be the Middle Way. Non-being alone is also like this. Next, explaining "being" alone is complete with all phenomena. Why? Because this being is devoid of existence. If it were existing what is absent, it would lose all phenomena; now, because having no existence is named being, it is complete with all phenomena. Stating "non-being" alone is also like this: it is merely non-attainment, hence it is called non-being; does this non-being not complete all phenomena?

Next, explaining the meaning of intrinsic emptiness: now, the reason why existence and non-existence can have all phenomena with unobstructed intention is precisely due to the presence of intrinsic emptiness; hence one must now explain intrinsic emptiness. It also has many senses, but we distinguish only eight senses: 1. Clarifying that the original nature is empty, but due to encountering conditions it is existent; when existence ceases it returns to the original nature; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 2. Clarifying that the original nature is empty, while the branch is conventional existence; due to such a sense, it is intrinsic emptiness. 3. The original nature is constantly empty, with no time when it is not empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 4. Clarifying that dependently arisen phenomena are themselves empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 5. Refuting intrinsic existence to attain this emptiness; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 6. Refuting phenomena devoid of nature: this phenomenon clarifies merely that existence-nature is empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 7. Clarifying that phenomena having no existence are empty in their nature; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. 8. The nature of phenomena of existing what is absent is empty; hence it is called intrinsic emptiness. Now we briefly clarify the different marks of these eight senses, yet the great intent is not different; it is merely one intrinsic emptiness. As such, the intrinsic emptiness of all phenomena is used according to convenience of meaning. Using one, one crosses over; one must grasp the intent, like weaving gauze patterns in empty space. Intrinsic emptiness being like this, ultimate [emptiness] is also like this.

Next, clarifying the meaning of gain and loss, relativity and non-relativity, on the basis of intrinsic emptiness: losing this intrinsic emptiness is therefore loss; loss is not relative to gain. Gaining intrinsic emptiness is therefore gain; gain is relative to loss. Why? Precisely because gain and loss are opposites. Since loss loses gain, loss is not relative to gain; as for gain, it gains upon loss, so gain is relative to loss. This is the meaning of distinction. Foremost, one must grasp the intent, which is the most urgent matter. Just as the Middle Way cuts off the conventional, so it is not relative to the conventional; the conventional does not cut off [the Middle Way], so the conventional is relative to the middle.

Next, distinguishing the meaning of contraction and expansion. Since gain and loss stem from contraction and expansion, they must be explained. But contraction and expansion naturally have horizontal and vertical distinctions, and naturally have two perspectives from which they are taken: horizontal expansion is capacity, vertical is contraction. When a bodhisattva practices the various practices, looking toward the Way, it is self-cultivation, which is contraction; looking toward sentient beings, it is converting others, which is capacity. However, when not converting others, that is converting others; merely self-cultivation is itself converting others. In this way, "not-being being" has various functions—disease and medicine counteracting each other, discarding and retaining, establishing and demolishing, inside and outside principle, having attainment and non-attainment, contrary and accordant—which cannot be enumerated fully. The general intent is like this.

Question: Since "not-being being" has many kinds of momentum, does "being not-being" (有不有) also have many kinds of momentum?
Answer: That is also possible. Conventional existence also concludes as "being not-being." Furthermore, "conventional existence is not-being" expresses the principle and concludes the substance. The remaining analogies may be inferred.