二諦義 3.25

3.25

Question: What is the purpose of using these words? Explanation: The intention is to distinguish between the ordinary person and the noble one, between loss and gain, delusion and awakening. How so? Ordinary beings, being deluded, see existence; noble ones, being awakened, do not see existence. If that is so, it is the same as the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers: being deluded, one sees existence; being awakened, one does not see existence. Furthermore, if through awakening now one does not see sentient beings, then there is only the ultimate and no conventional; responsiveness and resonance do not intersect, and ordinary and noble are separated into two. This would mean that the ultimate stands isolated on its own, and the noble one remains solitary and aloof. Explanation: The noble one knows that from the perspective of the noble one it is empty, and knows that from the perspective of the ordinary person it exists. Because he knows that from the perspective of the ordinary person it exists, he can effect transformation. Objection: Now I am not asking about your knowing; I only ask whether you see or do not see. If you do not see, the path of transformation is severed; if you see, you are still deluded. You yourself determined that, being deluded, one sees existence, and, being awakened, one does not see existence; now that you see existence, you are still deluded. Why? A verse in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'If one asserts that by perception / there are arising and ceasing, / that is foolish delusion / which sees arising and ceasing.' The prose commentary explains: 'Due to inverted ignorance, there is the eye; due to the eye, there is seeing.' If you see now, it is still foolish delusion. Next explanation: Being deluded, one sees existence and therefore there is existence, and sees a pillar and therefore there is a pillar; now, awakened, one knows that existence is the existence that is non-existent, and a pillar is the pillar that is not a pillar. However, although this can explain it, it has great defects: first, it is identical to the Chengshi lun; second, it is identical to the Dilun; third, it again falls into difficulties. As for being identical to the Chengshi lun: the Chengshi lun explains that there are two afflictions of the provisional and the real, and two objective realms of the provisional and the real; being deluded regarding the provisional and real objective realms is termed the two afflictions of the provisional and the real. Just as a pillar is provisional and the four subtle elements are real, when deluded one sees existence and therefore there is existence, sees a pillar and therefore there is a pillar; awakening to the two objective realms of the provisional and the real, one then knows it is a provisional pillar, a pillar that is not a pillar, an existence that is non-existent. They also explain that through delusion one sees existence, and through awakening one knows it is non-existent existence. If it is also so now, then it is no different from theirs. As for being identical to the Dilun: they say that regarding a single tree, if grasped with a mind with marks, it is a tree with outflows; if grasped with a mind without marks, it is a tree of the forest of Dharma without outflows. This is still delusion and awakening: being deluded, there are marks; being awakened, there are no marks; being deluded, a tree is therefore a tree; being awakened, it is not a tree as a tree. If at the time of awakening one sees non-existent existence, then it is identical to the Chengshi lun and the Dilun; if when awakened one does not see, it is identical to the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers: because of dreaming there is a tiger, but upon waking one does not see that there is a tiger. All phenomena are also like this: being deluded, one sees existence; being awakened, one does not see it. Why did Emperor Wu of Liang formulate the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers? It was for this reason that he formulated this meaning. If, upon awakening, one still sees, one is still deluded; being deluded, one sees, and being awakened, one does not see. It is also identical to the doctrine of the great sudden awakening, which was expounded by Zhu Daosheng. He said: 'Retribution is the arena of change and decay; saṃsāra is the realm of a great dream. From saṃsāra up to the vajra-mind is all a dream; after the vajra-mind, one has sudden great awakening and there is no longer anything seen.' There is also the doctrine of the small sudden awakening, which explains that on the seventh stage one awakens to saṃsāra as having nothing that exists. This comes from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Just as a person crossing a river in a dream constructs rafts and floats, moves hands and feet, and goes across; upon waking, there is nothing at all. The bodhisattva on the seventh stage is also like this: from saṃsāra onward up to the sixth stage, it is like what is seen in a dream; on the seventh stage, the bodhisattva suddenly awakens.' It was for this reason that the master said that being deluded there is existence, and being awakened it is non-existent existence. Making this statement was precisely to counter the meaning of the tiger in a dream and sky-flowers, where at the time of awakening there is nothing seen at all. Now, to counter them, he said one sees non-existent existence. A third objection directly confronts [this]: You previously said that being deluded there is existence and being awakened there is emptiness, which means that being deluded one sees and being awakened one does not see. Now you ultimately [posit] non-existent existence, which means seeing without seeing and being deluded without being deluded. Yet seeing existence or not seeing existence—this is not yet awakening. Moreover, let me ask: How is this existence obtained? Take just the retribution of vessels, pillars, and the three realms—how does one obtain such results? Is it produced by inverted karma, or produced by non-inverted karma? If produced by inverted karma, only the deluded see it, while the awakened do not see it. If you say it is produced by non-inverted karma, that is not correct. For the buddhas and bodhisattvas, karma of the three realms is already exhausted; how could they again obtain results of the three realms? Hence that is untenable. If you say it is produced by the inverted karma of sentient beings in the three realms, and buddhas and bodhisattvas enter the three realms to convert sentient beings, that is also not correct. When buddhas enter the three realms to convert sentient beings, is it because they see the three realms that they convert them, or because they do not see them that they convert them? If they see them, they are identical to the deluded; if they do not see them, what do they convert? This point cannot be sustained either backwards or forwards, and so forth. Objecting to our school in this way also allows us to object to others: You say the three realms—by what karma are they produced? In the twelve links of dependent origination, past ignorance and karmic formations bring about the five fruits. Ignorance is affliction, and karmic formations are karma; they are brought about by karma and afflictions. The buddhas have eradicated the delusions of the five entrenchments completely, and no longer have afflictions and karma; hence they should not see the three realms. If they see them, they are identical to the deluded; if they are not deluded, they do not see them. They reply: The buddhas have severed the afflictions regarding the provisional and the real, but the two objective realms of the provisional and the real are not absent; therefore, although they are without afflictions, they still see them. Rebuttal: I only ask: by what karma is the objective realm that is seen produced? Is it produced by awakened karma, or produced by deluded karma? If it is produced by deluded karma, then upon awakening one does not see it; if it is produced by awakened karma, there is no such principle. Next, we object to the Dilun's view that seeing a tree with a mind with marks is with outflows, while grasping it with a mind without marks is a tree of the forest of Dharma without outflows. I only ask: by what karma is this tree produced? Is it produced by erroneous karma, or produced by true karma? If produced by erroneous karma, upon awakening to the true one does not see it; if produced by true karma, how could true karma produce an erroneous tree? Hence this doctrine is difficult to explain.