大乘玄論 5.9
English (machine translation) 5.9
- Language
- English
5.9.1
When the Great Master lectured on this treatise, the frequency varied, and his approach was never only one. Now I briefly set forth ten points: First, he would at times explain the overarching tenet of the four treatises, elucidate the title *Madhyamaka*, explain the mutual assistance between sūtras and treatises, the primary and secondary roles of truth and gnosis, and the proximal and distal aspects of refutation and exposition, and only then enter the treatise text. The reason for this was to clarify that the doctrinal principles have orderly sequence and the textual points are lucidly displayed, so that disciples receiving the teaching could investigate and easily comprehend. Second, at the beginning of the treatise he would directly and informally discuss the general import, and then proceed into the text of the treatise. This was intended to grasp the main threads and highlight the essentials, keeping its profound mystery concealed until revealed thereafter. Third, he would first comprehensively explain the two truths, and upon concluding immediately interpret the treatise text. This clarified that the Buddha taught the two truths to express the correct path, and now this treatise takes the two truths as its tenet, showing where the credit belongs. Fourth, he would first explain the two gnoses and afterwards enter the treatise text. This clarified that the Buddha taught the bodhisattvas by means of the two gnoses, and now through the provisional and the real one reveals the correct and refutes the heterodox; hence it was necessary to distinguish the two gnoses. Fifth, he would criticize the ancient and modern and refute the heterodox schools. The reason for this was that from antiquity to the present, all writings generally did not inherit the style of Nāgārjuna; they all fell into annihilationism or eternalism and threw the supreme path into confusion; hence he had to refute them broadly before being able to read the text. Sixth, he would first read the old Guanhe prefaces, such as those written by Sengying and Sengrui. The reason for this was that worldly people at the time said that the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises arose first and the Three Treatises emerged later. He wished to show that the Guanhe transmission had a lineage of masters and was not newly fabricated at present. Seventh, he would at times directly chant sūtras such as the *Wuxing jing* and *Fozang jing*, and then enter the treatise. He wished to clarify that sūtras and treatises complement each other to jointly reveal the one path; then the purport of the sūtras could be seen and the intent of the treatise easily understood. Eighth, he would contrast the treatise composed by Harivarman with the work of Kātyāyana, wishing to clarify whether the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna divisions pertain to attainment or non-attainment. Ninth, he would at times confront and refute heterodox scholars to their faces, and then immediately enter the treatise, wishing to cause those who clung stubbornly to abandon their delusion and those who aspired to attainments to deeply awaken. Tenth, he would at times simply open the text without any other exposition, wishing to clarify that this treatise issued from the mind of a bodhisattva, its precise refutations and wondrous understandings already contained within the text, so how could one arbitrarily insert clumsy opinions to add to it? Hence he directly read the text. As for why the Dharma master had many different approaches when lecturing on the treatise, there are briefly three reasons: First, to show that the Dharma master was skilled in discerning faculties and conditions to harmonize the nature of beings; since receptive awakenings were of very many kinds, his expositions were likewise inexhaustible. Second, he wished to differ from others. When others establish an interpretation, they fix upon a single explanation, so the listeners grasp only a single comprehension, having no transformative awakening at all. Now he clarified that phenomena have no fixed characteristic, so how could there be only one kind? Third, Nāgārjuna and Deva possessed profound and wondrous thoughts with myriad expedient means; how could transmitting them in our time be uniform? Now, with regard to the beginning of the treatise, it is broadly divided into five sections: First, clarifying the general purport of refutation and exposition; second, clarifying that the overarching tenets of the four treatises contain both similarities and differences; third, clarifying the agent and object of the sūtras and treatises, and the primary and secondary roles of truth and gnosis; fourth, elucidating the title of the treatise *Madhyamaka*; fifth, clarifying the conditions of the treatise's origin, addressing doubts through question and answer. Why is it necessary to distinguish the general purport of refutation and exposition? Whether internal or external students, whenever they compose writings, they all distinguish refutation and exposition; thus both internal and external schools claim that they themselves are right and others are wrong, praising themselves and disparaging others. Furthermore, internal sūtras describe what non-Buddhists assert, saying: 'This is real, everything else is false speech.' Next, the *Tattvasiddhi* refutes the Sarvāstivāda sūtras, using the four truths to re-emphasize and re-reveal this truth. Such lines of thought all wish to refute others and establish themselves, but since they stem from delusive fabrications, none of them accomplishes true refutation and exposition. The intent of the present treatise is to use skillful means to assist the Buddha in spreading his transformation; only this is true refutation and exposition. Therefore, its general purport is clarified at the beginning. Refutation and exposition are simply refuting the heterodox and revealing the correct; that is, felling the banner of wrong views and kindling the torch of the correct Dharma. Question: Who can refute the heterodox? What is used to reveal the correct? Answer: It does not go beyond persons and Dharma: 'person' means the sage; 'Dharma' is called the correct Dharma. If one possesses both Dharma and person, one can refute the heterodox and reveal the correct. Regarding this, there are three pairs: first, the Buddha and bodhisattvas; second, sūtras and treatises; third, refutation and exposition. As for the Buddha and bodhisattvas: what the Buddha spoke by means of the two gnoses of the Middle Way is called sūtras; what the bodhisattvas expressed by means of the two wisdoms of the Middle Way is called treatises. What the Buddha spoke by means of the two gnoses of the Middle Way is called sūtras, and sūtras are teaching. What does teaching show? Teaching instructs conditions. What do conditions receive? Conditions merely receive teaching. Therefore, when conditions and teaching correspond, there are none who do not awaken and enter. As for 'awakening and entering': the teaching distinguishes the ultimate and conventional, while conditions awaken to what is neither ultimate nor conventional; the teaching speaks of cause and effect, while conditions awaken to what is neither cause nor effect; the rest follow this pattern. Therefore, due to teaching one awakens to principle; because one awakens to principle, one understands the teaching. Teaching is the gateway to principle; hence due to teaching one reaches principle. Stimulus and response through dependent co-arising tally in secret like fitting tallies: resounding, they exist; vast and empty, they are non-existent. This is precisely the Buddha's intent in speaking teachings for conditions. However, when the teachings flowed down to the final age, those of dull faculties and meager merits pursued the teachings and lost their purport, not knowing the Buddha's intent. Therefore, the treatise states at the beginning: 'Seeking fixed characteristics of the five aggregates, twelve sense-bases, eighteen elements, and so forth, they merely cling to words and letters and do not understand the Buddha's intent. Hearing that in the Mahāyāna teaching complete emptiness is spoken of, they do not understand due to what conditions it is empty. Thereupon they give rise to views and doubts: towards existence they give rise to views, and towards emptiness they give rise to doubts.' Why is this? Because with a mind of attainment, having reliance and having attainment, when they hear of the ultimate and conventional they abide in the ultimate and conventional, not knowing that they are rooted in what is neither ultimate nor conventional. Thus they turn back to the ultimate and conventional to seek the reality of the ultimate and conventional, not knowing to turn to what is neither ultimate nor conventional to seek the ultimate and conventional; they turn back to the ultimate and conventional to understand the ultimate and conventional, not knowing to use what is neither ultimate nor conventional to understand the ultimate and conventional; they turn back to the branches to seek the branches, not knowing to turn to the root to seek the branches. The root is the root of the branches; since they do not recognize the root of what is neither ultimate nor conventional, they do not recognize the branches of the ultimate and conventional. All matters and principles, such as cause and effect, are all like this. Therefore, just as others say, some claim that the ultimate and conventional are of one substance, some say they are of different substances, some say that within the cause the effect already exists, and some say that within the cause the effect does not previously exist, and so forth; whatever they state all comes from what their deluded sentiments fabricate, and has never been what the sūtras and treatises clarify. Therefore, annihilationism and eternalism arise by turns, production and cessation contend to occur, heterodox words conceal [the truth], and correct teachings are not expounded. Therefore, Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna took pity on this degeneration, revealed the teaching gateway of the eight negations, broke down their annihilationism and eternalism, and returned all to non-duality. The meaning of refutation and exposition is broadly like this. Question: What is heterodox such that one speaks of refuting the heterodox, and what is correct such that one speaks of expounding the correct? Answer: Since the heterodox is immeasurable, the correct is also of many paths. Broadly speaking, they do not go beyond two kinds, namely attainment and non-attainment. Attainment is heterodox and must be refuted; non-attainment is correct and must be expounded. Therefore, in the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, Subhūti asked: 'What is the bodhisattva path? What is not the bodhisattva path?' The Buddha answered: 'Attainment is not the bodhisattva path; non-attainment is the bodhisattva path.'
5.9.2
Question: Since refuting attainment affirms non-attainment, should one also merely refute attachment to intrinsic nature and affirm conventional designation, or not? Answer: Attachment to intrinsic nature is attainment, and conventional designation is non-attainment. Now, refuting attainment and affirming non-attainment is precisely refuting attachment to intrinsic nature and affirming conventional designation. Question: Since refuting intrinsic nature affirms the conventional, should one also merely refute existence and affirm non-existence? If both existence and non-existence are washed away, should both intrinsic nature and conventional designation be doubly refuted? Answer: They are not analogous. Both existence and non-existence are intrinsic natures, which is why both must be refuted. Since intrinsic nature and the conventional are distinguished as different, there is that which is refuted and that which is not refuted. Question: If both intrinsic nature as existence and intrinsic nature as non-existence are intrinsic nature, such that one only refutes intrinsic nature and does not refute the conventional, then both intrinsic existence and conventional existence are existence, so one should only refute existence and not refute non-existence. Answer: Although they are equally existence, existence is not the same [in both cases]; therefore, one only refutes intrinsic existence and does not refute conventional existence. Question: If, because although they are equally existence the existence is not the same, one only refutes intrinsic existence and does not refute conventional existence, then should it also be that although both are equally intrinsic nature the intrinsic natures are not the same, so that one does not refute intrinsic non-existence but only refutes intrinsic existence? Answer: There is that which is analogous and that which is not analogous. To speak of that which is analogous: since both intrinsic existence and intrinsic non-existence are intrinsic nature, both are refuted; likewise, since both intrinsic existence and conventional existence are existence, both must also be eliminated. As for that which is not analogous: it is explained that intrinsic existence abides in existence and conflicts with the Way, so it must be refuted; conventional existence is non-existence and supports the Way, so it is not eliminated. Next, it was said earlier that refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct refers to the Buddha and the bodhisattvas. Now I ask: down through the true Dharma and continuing to the counterfeit Dharma, those who transmitted, upheld, and carried on the succession were not few. Exactly which persons are taken here as refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct? Answer: Speaking in terms of the general framework, they do not exceed four persons. The first is the Tamer, the World-Honoured One, who is the master capable of transforming beings; the remaining three sages assist the Buddha in proclaiming and propagating [the teaching], the three being the great being Aśvaghoṣa, together with Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Question: In refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct, are these four persons the same or are they different? Answer: Provisionally, to resolve the doubt for the moment, one says they are neither different nor the same. As the Buddha and bodhisattvas, they are therefore not the same; in jointly revealing the true mark, they are therefore not different. This is being neither the same nor different with respect to sameness and difference. Once one understands neither difference nor sameness, one understands sameness and difference. Because of the superior and inferior nature of being complete or incomplete as Buddha and bodhisattvas, they are different; because all refute the erroneous and reveal the correct, they are the same. Speaking of the difference between Buddha and bodhisattvas: the Buddha speaks the teaching, establishes the two truths, and responds to conditions; the bodhisattvas merely assist the Buddha in propagating the transformation and make no separate production. Among the bodhisattvas themselves, there are again differences. In the case of Nāgārjuna, when composing treatises he first refutes phenomena, and afterward cleanses the personal self as well. In the case of Āryadeva's composition, he first directly refutes the ātman, and afterward washes away phenomena as well. Why is this? The Madhyamakaśāstra refutes internal disciples who, although knowing there is no self, still grasp at the existence of phenomena; therefore, it first directly eliminates phenomena and afterward cleanses the personal self as well. Thus the Dvādaśanikāyaśāstra says: 'Even conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are empty, how much more so the self!' The Śataśāstra refutes non-Buddhists such as the Sāṃkhyas who postulate that there is an ātman and do not know selflessness; therefore, it must first directly refute the self and afterward refute phenomena as well. Hence, refuting the spirit explains the emptiness of persons, and refuting identity and difference clarifies the emptiness of phenomena. This is the difference. Question: Since both equally refute the erroneous to reveal the correct, why does one treatise affirm both the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles], while the other treatise does not affirm both the Greater and Lesser? Answer: If both affirmed the Greater and Lesser, how would there be a distinction between the two treatises? If they necessarily revealed the Lesser and Greater equally, how could one determine the difference between the two persons? Having formulated this to resolve that question, the doubt is settled; however, the intended purport is not merely this, and must be explained even more clearly. The Madhyamakaśāstra refutes the conditions of attachment to the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles], and therefore affirms the Greater and Lesser. The Śataśāstra does not refute the conditions of attachment to the Greater and Lesser, and so it does not explicitly affirm the Greater and Lesser. This is parallel. The Madhyamakaśāstra refutes conditions of attachment to the ultimate and the conventional, so it can reveal the ultimate and conventional. Since the Śataśāstra does not refute conditions of attachment to the ultimate and conventional, at the end of the treatise it should not clarify the ultimate and conventional to conclude the treatise's destination. The explanation states: The two truths of the ultimate and conventional are the teaching gates of all buddhas. They are like the myriad streams all returning to the great sea; whoever wishes to awaken and enter does so by relying on this teaching gate. When the treatises have refuted emptiness and refuted existence, and eliminated annihilationism and eliminated eternalism, the non-Buddhists lose their attachments and their minds have nowhere to lodge, so they immediately ask what the Buddha's Dharma teaches. The treatise master answers promptly: There are two truths; because conventional truth exists, there is no annihilation, and because ultimate truth is non-existent, there is no permanence. Causing their annihilationist and eternalist views to cease, one must therefore expound the two truths. Question: Some say 'refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct'; others say 'how could the correct exist apart from the erroneous? One simply turns the erroneous person toward the correct; because of the erroneous, one attains the correct.' These two statements seem to be contradictory. If one says 'refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct', then one should not say 'because of the erroneous there is the correct, merely making the erroneous person correct.' If one says 'only because of the erroneous is there the correct', then one should not say 'eliminating the erroneous reveals the correct.' Again, I ask: is it because the erroneous and the correct are one that one speaks of 'refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct'? Or is it because the erroneous and the correct are different that one speaks of 'refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct'? Others explain: The erroneous and the correct are two separate poles; because one eliminates the erroneous, one is able to reveal the correct. Objection: If so, a jar and a garment are different in substance—does refuting a jar reveal a garment? They say: A jar and a garment are indeed different, but they do not mutually harm or obstruct each other; because they are not mutually obstructing dharmas, refuting a jar does not reveal a garment. The erroneous and the correct are mutually obstructing dharmas; because the erroneous obstructs the correct, refuting the erroneous reveals the correct. Objection: If it is because the erroneous and the correct conflict that refuting the erroneous reveals the correct, then water and fire harm each other—why does refuting water not reveal fire? Since that is not the case, one knows: how could the erroneous and the correct be radically different? Now, if one says that erroneous words conceal the correct teaching, and without refuting erroneous words one cannot reveal the correct teaching—it is not that this is not so, but this erroneous and correct are distant and alien, not our school's intention. Now we clarify that the Way is neither erroneous nor correct, and the condition capable of realizing the Way also awakens to being neither erroneous nor correct. But because one was previously deluded and is now awakened, one designates the previous delusion and deviation as 'erroneous' and calls the present awakening 'correct'; when this awakening is attained, there is completely no erroneous and correct. Question: If so, is it definitively refuting the erroneous to reveal the correct? Or is it definitively revealing the correct because of the erroneous? Answer: Both of these meanings are present. When speaking of refuting the erroneous to reveal the correct: previous delusion constituted annihilationism and eternalism, and therefore this erroneous view must be refuted; now attaining the awakening of non-annihilation and non-permanence is called the meaning of revealing the correct; therefore one speaks of refuting the erroneous and revealing the correct. One may also say that because of the erroneous there is the correct: it merely causes one who is deluded by annihilationism and eternalism to be non-annihilated and non-permanent; how could there be awakening apart from delusion, or a non-annihilation and non-permanence apart from annihilationism and eternalism? Question: Since the Buddha's appearing in the world had conditions of response by which he was moved to appear, was Nāgārjuna's appearing in the world also moved by conditions of response, or not? Answer: It is analogous. Question: If the Buddha's and Nāgārjuna's appearing in the world were both moved by conditions of response, then the Buddha could illuminate conditions—could Nāgārjuna also illuminate conditions, or not? Answer: That is also analogous. Question again: If so, the Buddha spoke teachings—should Nāgārjuna also speak teachings, or not? Answer: It should be analogous, but it is not analogous.
5.9.3
As for how they are parallel: the Buddha taught the sūtra teachings, and Nāgārjuna taught the śāstra teachings. As for how they are not parallel: although both responded to resonant capacity, the resonant capacities were not the same. The Buddha was moved by the resonant capacities of sentient beings to teach the doctrine of the two truths; although Nāgārjuna was also moved by resonant capacity, it only moved Nāgārjuna to refute falsehood, refuting falsehood so as to make people recognize the Buddha's teaching. Question: Although they both responded to resonant capacity, the resonant capacities differed; and though the Buddha and the author of the treatise both illuminated, did their illumination also differ? Answer: Indeed, it is so. The Buddha's illumination was grandly bright, while the treatise master's illumination was slightly dim. Question: Other treatises have refutation and demonstration, and the present treatise also has refutation and demonstration; in the end, what difference is there between these two treatises—the present and the others? Another challenge: If one simply insists on making a distinction, then while other treatises may have refutation and demonstration, the present treatise should only refute and not demonstrate. Answer: Since there is one question and one challenge, there is now one answer and one resolution. First, to answer the first question. Above it was asked: "Both have refutation and demonstration; what is the difference between these two treatises—the present and the others?" Now it is explained that other treatises, having refuted, establish something further, whereas the present treatise only refutes and does not establish. As for other treatises having refutation and establishment: for instance, they refute the non-Buddhists' ātman, yet further establish a conventionally designated practitioner; they refute the non-Buddhists' twenty-five principles, yet establish the four truths, sixteen truths, and so forth. If the non-Buddhists' ātman is truly not non-existent, then your treatise's conventionally designated practitioner of conventional truth must also not be lost. If you say that the non-Buddhists' twenty-five principles are false, your four truths and sixteen truths also have faults. Since their positing of a person and phenomena constitutes non-Buddhist doctrine, your positing of a person and phenomena is likewise non-Buddhist. The present treatise is not like this: it only refutes and does not establish. Why is this? The treatise master appeared in the world solely to refute inverted views, annihilationism, and eternalism, with nothing further to establish. Hence the preface to the treatise says: "His words have no reification; he refutes without grasping." Next, to answer the second challenge. The challenge said: "If it differs from other treatises, while other treatises may have refutation and demonstration, the present treatise should only refute and not demonstrate." Now, responding provisionally: let it be as you have questioned. If other treatises have refutation and establishment, then having refuted, they have something else to demonstrate; since the present treatise only refutes and does not establish, it only refutes and does not demonstrate. Why is this? Whether sūtras or treatises, they only refute inverted views and illusions, with nothing further to demonstrate. Originally, teachings exist because of sickness; once the sickness is eliminated, the medicinal teaching is also exhausted. Therefore, the text below in the Śataśāstra says: "Refutation is as what can be refuted." A passage below in the present treatise also says: "There is neither person nor phenomena, nor did the Buddha teach anything." Since the Buddha taught nothing, how could there be any teaching to demonstrate? Now, to answer further: other treatises have refutation and establishment, which merely increases attainment; not only are they incapable of demonstration, they are also incapable of refutation. Being themselves possessing of attainment, how could they refute others? The present treatise only refutes and has never established anything of its own; not only can it refute, it can also demonstrate. Therefore, the Great Master gave the metaphor of a fierce general: with nothing established before him and nothing held behind him, he can vanquish the fierce and vile enemy and display our imperial majesty. The bodhisattva is likewise: with the unborn right contemplation, he realizes that inner and outer phenomena are ultimately pure, and thus can refute and cleanse away illusions of annihilationism and eternalism, revealing the Tathāgata's true and correct Dharma. Such skillfulness is called "refutation and demonstration." Hence the preface to the treatise says: "Detached and without reliance, yet affairs do not lose their truth; calm and without entanglements, yet principle spontaneously accords with the profound." Question: Other treatises are not only unable to demonstrate but also fail to refute, whereas the present treatise can fully refute and demonstrate. If so, other treatises are defeated and the present treatise is victorious. This then gives rise to a mind of victory and defeat and views of right and wrong, which is an impediment of annihilationism and eternalism—how could it demonstrate the correct path? Answer: If there were victory and defeat, this would indeed be an impediment. It is precisely because there is neither victory nor defeat that it can demonstrate. Question: If there were victory and defeat, there could be refutation; since you say there is neither victory nor defeat, what falsehood do you refute? Answer: Indeed, it is so. Grasping at victory and defeat, one perceives refutation; now, having neither victory nor defeat, I truly refute nothing. Question: If there were victory and defeat, one could speak of demonstration; since there is neither victory nor defeat, what else is there to demonstrate? Answer: If there were victory and defeat, what was meant to be demonstrated would become even more impeded. Precisely because there is neither victory nor defeat, that which was impeded is demonstrated, yet in reality there is non-attainment. Question: What falsehood is refuted? In what way is the correct demonstrated? Answer: The Buddha responded to capacities and taught the two teachings of ultimate and conventional truth, with the intention of revealing the path of the middle and true. However, because capacities were deluded about the two teachings and did not awaken to the middle and true, they formed the sickness of annihilationism and eternalism. Now we refute the false attachments of these capacities and demonstrate the Buddha's correct teaching. The master said: This meaning is not absent. Yet if one only offers this interpretation, it does not come close to the meaning of our lineage. Why is this so? The eight negations at the beginning of the treatise are meant to refute arising, ceasing, annihilationism, and eternalism, and to purify coming, going, oneness, and difference. If there were separately two truths and a Middle Way that could be demonstrated distinct from the refutation of falsehood, why would it be said to purify annihilationism and eternalism and eliminate arising and ceasing? Question: Earlier it was said that the first section clarifies the refutation of falsehood and the revelation of the correct, but now it is said that it only purifies annihilationism, eternalism, coming, and going, and that there are no two truths to demonstrate. If one relies on the former statement, it contradicts the present explanation; if one adopts the present interpretation, it in turn overturns the previous judgment. With two contradictory statements, how does one hit the middle? Answer: There are two points. First, to turn your words back upon you: what kind of thing are the two truths, ultimate and conventional? Hearing of refuting sickness, you say that it does not demonstrate teaching; hearing of demonstrating teaching, you say it is not refuting falsehood. Having broken down doubts in this way, it can be roughly seen, but it still requires skillful words to explain. Why is this? The two truths are taught solely to refute arising, ceasing, annihilationism, and eternalism: conventional truth is provisional arising and ceasing; ultimate truth is non-arising and non-ceasing. The intention is to clarify that provisional arising and ceasing are in truth non-arising and non-ceasing, causing one to awaken that arising and ceasing are non-arising and non-ceasing, and coming and going are non-coming and non-going. Precisely this refutation of arising, ceasing, annihilationism, and eternalism is called "teaching"; it is both refutation and teaching. Now the treatise master again teaches this doctrine that refutes annihilationism, eternalism, arising, and ceasing to transform beings, enabling capacities to attain such awakening; this is demonstrating the teaching that refutes sickness, and the teaching that refutes sickness is demonstrated. Demonstrating precisely this refutation is called "refutation and demonstration." Now that this refutation is demonstrated, it is called "demonstrating refutation." The general meaning of refutation and demonstration is provisionally concluded as above.
Linked texts (1)
- 大乘玄論 — Classical Chinese