二諦義 1.53

1.53

Next, discussing negation and non-negation within the three kinds of two truths: the three without expedient means are negated, while the three with expedient means are not negated. That the three without expedient means are negated means: these three invertedly conceive that there are three, while in reality there are no such three; therefore they must be negated. It is like a mirage conceived to be water, when in reality there is no water. Yet there is also no negating. Why? If there were water, it could be negated; since there is no water, what is there to negate? To speak of 'negating' is said in view of their conceiving it to exist; hence one speaks of 'negating'. That the three with expedient means are not negated means: without destroying nominal designations, one speaks of the true mark of all phenomena; without moving from equal awakening, one establishes all phenomena. Since it is said that without destroying nominal designations one speaks of the true mark of all phenomena, how could one attain the non-dual and negate the dual? If one attained the non-dual and negated the dual, that would destroy nominal designations in speaking of the true mark of all phenomena, and move from equal awakening in establishing all phenomena. The mere nominal designation is itself the true mark; why should it be negated? As the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'This nominal [designation] is itself the Middle [Way]'; negating nominal designation is negating the Middle. Since the Middle is not negated, how could nominal designation be negated? This is emptiness-existence being existent-emptiness, duality and non-duality being non-dual duality, unobstructed horizontally and vertically. Therefore Master Zhao said: 'If one wishes to speak of its existence, its existence is not real arising; if one wishes to speak of its non-existence, its forms and marks have already taken shape.' And further: 'It is like an illusory person: it is not that there is no illusory person, but the illusory person is not a real person.' This is only that the illusory person is not a person, and not being a person does not preclude the illusory person. The illusory person is not a person, [yet] is a non-person person. All phenomena are also like this; therefore they are not negated. Discussing negation and non-negation in terms of having expedients or lacking expedients, and being conditioned or unconditioned, is like this. Next, further explaining negation and non-negation in terms of the two contemplations of arising-and-perishing and non-arising-and-perishing according to subjective conception. Why? Traditionally it is said: Hīnayāna severs the afflictions of the two wheels, attaining the two understandings of seeing and thinking. Mahāyāna severs the afflictions of the five entrenchments, attaining the understanding of the ten stages. This means seeing and thinking subdue the two afflictions, and the understanding of the ten stages severs the afflictions of the five entrenchments. This is negating affliction to establish understanding, and negating the ordinary to establish the noble. If one does not sever the two afflictions, seeing and thinking cannot be completed; if one does not subdue the five entrenchments, the Buddha-fruit is not established. Thus both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sever afflictions to accomplish noble status. Now, viewed in light of the Lotus Sūtra, both are dung-cleaners. Why are they called dung-cleaners? It is to disparage them. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Thinking the son foolish and base, delighting in base tasks.' Since the two vehicles' severing of afflictions is cleaning dung, the bodhisattva's severing of afflictions is also cleaning dung—they are alike, yet [the latter is] even more extreme. Why? Because they equally sever, they are alike; because what is severed is little or much, it is more extreme. The two vehicles' cleaning dung is hardly worth mentioning; because the bodhisattva takes a long time and cleans dung broadly, it is far more extreme. Now we explain: the bodhisattva knows that afflictions are originally unarisen and currently unperished; what is there to sever? This is being born in the Buddha's household with noble lineage, like the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king. One sees only hired, lowly men cleaning dung; when has one ever heard of an elder's son carrying excrement? Therefore we now explain that the bodhisattva does not sever afflictions. Why? The bodhisattva knows that afflictions are originally unarisen and currently unperished, so there is nothing to sever. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Dharmas are originally unarisen, and currently they do not perish.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'All phenomena from their very origin / are eternally of the characteristic of quietude and cessation.' Traditionally it is said: the bodhisattva has the contemplation of non-arising and non-perishing. Why is non-arising and non-perishing explained? As distinguished just now, knowing that they are originally unarisen and currently unperished, one speaks of the bodhisattva's contemplation of non-arising and non-perishing.