大乘玄論 5.12.4

5.12.4

Chapter after chapter investigates annihilation and permanence; section after section contemplates and examines empty falsity. The eight negations alone are precisely their characteristics. Those [opponents] claim there is production and cessation; they claim there is annihilation and permanence. Now, by demanding of them regarding production and cessation that [things] are neither produced nor ceased, and seeking regarding annihilation and permanence that [things] are neither annihilated nor permanent, this very [method] is that in contemplating annihilation and permanence there is no annihilation or permanence, and in examining empty falsity there is no empty falsity. Therefore, the 'Chapter on the Examination of Dharmas' says: 'If dharmas arise from conditions, they are neither identical to nor different from the cause; this then is named the real contemplation: neither annihilated nor permanent.'
However, one school explains: the middle arises from contemplation, and contemplation arises from the middle. Now it is clarified that it is not using the cognitive object of the middle to give rise to the gnosis of contemplation, nor using the gnosis of contemplation to illuminate the cognitive object of the middle. It is simply that this correct contemplation can realize the real of the middle, and the real of the middle is precisely correct contemplation. There is no real of the middle distinct from correct contemplation such that one uses the real of the middle to give rise to correct contemplation; there is no correct contemplation distinct from the real of the middle such that one uses correct contemplation to illuminate the real of the middle. Therefore, taking 'middle' as its name is to illuminate its reality. It is not that there is separately this reality used to illuminate this reality; it merely reveals that the middle is precisely reality, hence it says 'illuminates reality.' Now it is also thus: simply realizing this real of the middle reveals my correct contemplation, and my correct contemplation is precisely the real of the middle; therefore, the real of the middle gives rise to my correct contemplation, and the real of the middle is precisely correct contemplation.
Furthermore, 'contemplation' (guan) has the meaning of clear comprehension, and also the meaning of experiential illumination. Illuminating means illuminating both the heterodox and the correct; contemplating means contemplating both gain and loss. Illuminating both the heterodox and the correct means that recognizing the heterodox is recognizing the correct, and recognizing the correct can refute the heterodox. Contemplating both gain and loss means that comprehending loss is comprehending gain, and comprehending gain can refute loss. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* says: 'Having fully accomplished the correct and good, one expounds the four inversions.' If one does not accomplish the correct and good, how could one expound the inversions? Now it is also thus: if one does not understand the correct, how could one refute the heterodox? Thus, it is like calling the character 'person' (ren 人) the character 'enter' (ru 入): not only does one fail to recognize 'person', one also fails to recognize 'enter'. Now, if one recognizes 'person', not only does one recognize 'person', one also recognizes 'enter'. Now it is also thus: if one does not recognize the correct, one also does not recognize the heterodox; now, precisely because of recognizing the correct, one refutes the heterodox, and because of recognizing the heterodox, one can understand the correct.
Now to clarify: what are the characteristics of gain and loss? As when, at the beginning of the treatise, seeking the five aggregates, twelve entrances, eighteen elements, and so forth, they are regarded as existent and as produced and ceased—this is loss. Now by demanding of them, what is existent is not existent, and what is produced and ceased is not produced and not ceased—this is gain. The heterodox and the correct are also thus: originally, because of loss there is gain; once loss is refuted, gain also departs, and there is neither loss nor gain. The heterodox and the correct are also thus. This is conditions being exhausted in contemplation: these conditions of gain and loss, through contemplation, are brought to exhaustion, hence conditions are exhausted in contemplation. This is also contemplation being exhausted in conditions. Why so? Contemplation originally contemplates conditions; conditions having been exhausted, contemplation is also exhausted. Therefore, when conditions are exhausted, contemplation is purified; when contemplation is exhausted, conditions are purified. When conditions are exhausted and contemplation is purified, this contemplation is non-contemplation; when contemplation is exhausted and conditions are purified, these conditions are non-conditions. Therefore, neither conditions nor contemplation, conditions and contemplation both exhausted—only this is called the proper Middle Contemplation.
The separate explanation of 'Middle Contemplation' being concluded, next is to explain 'treatise' (śāstra). Now, what is the meaning of 'treatise'? 'Treatise' has the meaning of discussion and discernment: it simply discusses and discerns the characteristics of dharmas. If one relies on Master Rui's preface, a treatise has the meaning of exhausting words, stating: 'exhausting its words and plumbing its reflections.' If a single word is not exhausted, then numerous divergent [views] will proliferate; if a single reflection is not plumbed, then inversions will arise in confusion. Now, because its words are exhausted, the numerous divergent [views] cease; now, because its reflections are plumbed, inversions are purified. Therefore, only when a treatise exhausts words and plumbs reflections is the efficacy of the treatise revealed; thus it is said that words are exhausted and reflections are plumbed. Therefore, a treatise not only exhausts words, it also exhausts contemplation; contemplation not only exhausts conditions, it also exhausts the treatise; the middle not only exhausts contemplation, it also exhausts the treatise. Therefore, now indicating the title 'Madhyamakaśāstra' (Treatise on the Middle Contemplation) is simply desiring to exhaustively purify all dharmas. It is not like the interpretation of people who hold that the treatise merely desires to explain the meaning of the Middle Contemplation; merely desiring to exhaustively purify all dharmas is sufficient. Now, indicating one 'middle' is not only that the middle is the middle, but discerns that all dharmas are the middle. Since it is said that all dharmas are the middle, what further dharma could exist? Therefore, indicating the middle exhaustively purifies all dharmas. The middle being thus, contemplation and treatise are also thus.
Therefore, the middle arises from contemplation, and discernment flows from the divine mouth; this is why it is called a treatise. The middle arising from contemplation is skillful means real wisdom; discernment flowing from the divine mouth is real skillful means wisdom. Skillful means real wisdom is acting in accordance with what is spoken; real skillful means wisdom is speaking in accordance with what is acted. Acting in accordance with what is spoken is the two gnoses; speaking in accordance with what is acted is the two truths. Therefore, acting in accordance with what is spoken means that in action, one enacts what one has spoken; speaking in accordance with what is acted means that one speaks what one has enacted. Therefore, what is enacted is like what is spoken, and what is spoken is like what is enacted. Hence action and speech are non-dual, and truths and gnoses are equal.
Now, clarifying that exhausting words constitutes a treatise—this meaning is difficult. Now one must ask: If it is Master Ying, he says, 'Interrogation, answers, refutations, and investigations are why it is a treatise'; if it is Master Rui, he says, 'Taking "treatise" as its designation is because it exhausts its words.' These two statements clash like stones and run contrary like irons. Answer: They each rely on a different meaning; it does not mean they contradict each other. Master Ying speaks regarding the beginning, while Master Rui speaks in terms of the end. Why so? Truly because of interrogation and answers, words can be exhausted. By what cause are words able to be exhausted? Truly because of interrogation and answers. Therefore, the two statements complement each other, and both expressions are in accord: Master Ying speaks regarding the beginning, and Master Rui speaks in terms of the end.
Now, regarding the statement that exhausting words constitutes a treatise: if one lets the outsider's words be right, then one says Nāgārjuna is wrong; if one lets Nāgārjuna's words be right, then one says the outsider is wrong. In that case, disputes would be endless, and arguments would never cease; how could [the truth] yet be seen? If one relies on their origins, consequences, gains, and losses, ultimately it naturally resolves that Nāgārjuna has the gain and the outsider has the loss. Because the outsider has the loss, his words are exhausted. Truly because the outsider has words, Nāgārjuna has speech; the outsider's words having been exhausted, Nāgārjuna's speech is also finished. To give an analogy: it is like two men, Zhang and Wang, disputing over a pearl. Zhang claims it is Zhang's treasure, and Wang claims it is Wang's possession; thus the two men each dispute, in turmoil without resolution. Now, relying on their origins, consequences, gains, and losses, ultimately it naturally has its resolution: it is truly Zhang's possession. And Wang's companion recognizes that now it is indeed Zhang's possession, so Wang has nothing to say. Wang having nothing to say, Zhang also does not speak. Now Nāgārjuna and the outsider are also thus: Nāgārjuna is truly right, and the outsider speaks falsely. Now Nāgārjuna is indeed right, and the outsider has nothing to say. The outsider having nothing to say and being exhausted, Nāgārjuna's speech is also finished. Question: If Nāgārjuna's and the outsider's words are both exhausted, why is it solely called Nāgārjuna's treatise?