大乘玄論 5.9.3

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.