肇論疏 1.27

1.27

The text of the treatise has four parts: first, clarifying the doctrine of original non-being and the dharmatā; second, clarifying the doctrine of neither existence nor non-existence; third, clarifying the doctrine of upāya and prajñā; fourth, clarifying the doctrine of the cessation-truth of nirvāṇa. The first, clarifying the doctrine of original non-being and the dharmatā, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Wu buqian lun". The second, clarifying the doctrine of neither existence nor non-existence, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Buzhenkong lun". The third, clarifying the doctrine of upāya and prajñā, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Bore wuzhi lun". The fourth, clarifying the doctrine of the cessation-truth of nirvāṇa, serves as the fundamental doctrine of the "Niepan wuming lun". Now, regarding the words "original non-being", etc., someone says: "This integrates and explains the doctrines of the five houses. Zhu Fatai composed the Benwu lun; Master Kumārajīva composed the Shixiang lun; Master Huiyuan composed the Faxing lun; Master Dao'an composed the Xingkong lun; Yu Daosui composed the Yuanhui erdi lun. Now he integrates these five houses; hence he says they are 'just a single meaning'." This is not the explanation. Why? If it were now integrating Zhu Fatai's Benwu lun, why would the beginning of the "Buzhenkong lun" criticize the doctrine of original non-being? Furthermore, when Master Huiyuan composed the Faxing lun, he asked himself: "Is prakṛti-śūnyatā the Dharma-nature?" and replied: "No. Prakṛti-śūnyatā takes its name from that which is emptied; Dharma-nature is the true nature of dharmas, not the name for emptiness." How could they now be integrated into one? Someone else says: "Zhi Faxiang composed a Shixiang lun, and it is this treatise that is now being integrated." This explanation is even less correct. Zhi Faxiang never met Master Kumārajīva; having learned of him, he went to Guanzhong and wrote a letter asking Master Kumārajīva's disciple Shi Huiyi about the meaning of the dharmatā. Huiyi sent a reply, and this was titled Shixiang lun. These were all contemporaries of Master Sengzhao, and their talents and learning were beneath Master Sengzhao's; would he really integrate and explain treatises composed by such people? Certainly not. We now simply say that these five are great doctrines found within the sūtras and treatises: some considered them identical, while others considered them different; Master Sengzhao now integrates them into one, declaring they are not different. Furthermore, the four starting with original non-being constitute the absolute [truth], while the confluence of conditions constitutes the conventional [truth]; he now integrates these two truths, absolute and conventional, as not different. As for the term "original non-being", it is as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "There is no self, no maker, and no receiver of retribution; yet good and bad deeds are never lost." This is the meaning of original non-being. The Renwang jing says: "Existence is fundamentally from non-existence; through causes and conditions dharmas are formed." This too is the meaning of original non-being. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "If existence does not exist, how could there be non-existence? Since both existence and non-existence already do not exist, who is it that knows existence and non-existence?" It also says: "All dharmas cannot be apprehended, extinguishing all conceptual elaboration; there is no person and no place, and the Buddha has taught nothing." This too is the meaning of original non-being. As for the term "dharmatā", it is as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Just as I contemplate the dharmatā of my own body, I contemplate the Buddha likewise. I contemplate the Tathāgata: he does not come from the prior limit, does not go to the posterior limit, and now does not abide in the present; I do not contemplate form, do not contemplate the suchness of form, and do not contemplate the nature of form." This is the meaning of the dharmatā. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The dharmatā of all dharmas is that the movements of mind and words are severed; without arising and without cessation, quiescent like nirvāṇa." This too is the meaning of the dharmatā. As for the term "Dharma-nature", it is as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "The Dharma-nature, the Dharma-abode, the Dharma-realm, and the limit of reality: whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics of dharmas constantly abide." This is the meaning of Dharma-nature. Fascicle three of the Shengtianwang bore has a "Dharma-nature Chapter", which broadly clarifies that the Dharma-nature is inconceivable. This nature is the root of the dharmas of all Buddhas, through which merit and wisdom are produced. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "The nature possessed by the Tathāgata is the very nature of the world; the Tathāgata has no nature, and the world likewise has no nature." This too is the meaning of Dharma-nature. As for the term "prakṛti-śūnyatā", it is as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The nature of all dharmas is fundamentally empty of itself, and it is also empty because bodhisattvas cultivate emptiness." This is the meaning of prakṛti-śūnyatā. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Within such prakṛti-śūnyatā, even conceptual thinking is impossible; after the Tathāgata enters cessation, to differentiate existence and non-existence [is inadmissible]." This too is the meaning of prakṛti-śūnyatā. As for the term "confluence of conditions", the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Teaching the Dharma as neither existing nor not existing; dharmas arise because of causes and conditions." This is the meaning of the confluence of conditions. The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, of all dharmas, there is none that is not empty." This too is the meaning of the confluence of conditions. These five meanings are the great themes of the sūtras and treatises; when integrated through principle, they are one and without difference; hence he says they are "just a single meaning". Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa and Renwang sūtras both clarify that the two truths are of one essence; now, clarifying that these five meanings are exclusively the two truths, and yet these two truths are of one essence without distinction, he therefore says they are "a single meaning". Although there are two explanations, the former is the orthodox one. Below, "Why is this?": throughout this treatise, wherever it says "Why is this?", it is a hypothetical question. As for "All dharmas arise from the confluence of conditions": when setting out the meanings previously, he first set out original non-being; now, in integrating and explaining the five meanings, he discusses the confluence of conditions first, merely following convenience. As for "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā": there are three punctuations here. The first is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā" as the sentence. The second is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā and Dharma-nature" as the sentence. The third is taking "Because their nature is constantly empty of itself, this is called prakṛti-śūnyatā, Dharma-nature, and dharmatā" as the sentence. Among the three readings, the first is superior. We now follow the first reading: namely, that being constantly empty of itself by nature is called prakṛti-śūnyatā. As for "The Dharma-nature being thus, it is called dharmatā": prakṛti-śūnyatā is precisely the Dharma-nature, and this nature is precisely the dharmatā. As for "The dharmatā is naturally non-existent, not made non-existent by deductive reasoning": dharmas are naturally non-existent, which is called the dharmatā; it is not that deductive reasoning banishes them to make them non-existent.