觀心論疏 2.13

2.13

The *Dazhidulun* says: 'Among all dharmas, there are only name and form; if you wish to contemplate in accordance with reality, you should simply contemplate name and form.' Now, name is precisely the mind, which subsumes all sentient dharmas; form is the external dust, which subsumes all insentient dharmas. Thus, now examining 'arising is unattainable' with reference to the two dharmas of form and mind via the four tetralemmas of self and other, one should know that all the myriad dharmas are without arising. Sentient beings, by means of these four tetralemmas examining, interrogating, and finding that arising is unattainable, first awaken to and understand that all dharmas are without arising; they then can return to the root and go back to the source, returning to the real and original purity, and only then comprehend that all the myriad dharmas are false and unreal, with no further grasping or clinging. The dull-witted who have not awakened, hearing the refutation that all dharmas do not arise, then further claim that there is ceasing; the author of the treatise then again seeks and examines ceasing through the four tetralemmas. Why? If one says that the essence of a dharma ceases by itself, then that is self-ceasing; if one says that the essence of a dharma is ceased by the three characteristics, then that is other-ceasing; if one says that the essence of a dharma and the three characteristics combine to cease, then that is ceasing from both; if one says that it ceases apart from the essence of a dharma and the three characteristics, then that is causeless ceasing. The four tetralemmas are all unseekable, and examination finds them unattainable; only then does one awaken to the fact that all dharmas fundamentally do not arise, and now they do not cease. Knowing that form is itself emptiness, not that the extinction of form is emptiness, this is refuting the arising and ceasing of the twenty-five states of existence and returning to the emptiness of one-sided real intrinsic nature; this has not yet revealed the Middle Way. Now, using 'non-ceasing' to refute intrinsic-nature emptiness: if one says that the intrinsic nature of form itself is empty, that is self-ceasing; if one says that by annihilating form one grasps emptiness, that is other-ceasing; if one says that annihilating form and self-emptiness combine, that is ceasing from both; if one challenges self and other, that is causeless ceasing. Thus, examining intrinsic-nature emptiness through the four tetralemmas is also unattainable. This is precisely that dharmas do not cease from themselves, nor do they cease from another, nor from both, nor without cause; therefore, one knows there is no ceasing. Not permanent and not annihilated, not one and not different, not coming and not going—by analogy, examining them through the four tetralemmas, all are unattainable; hence one knows that non-ceasing thus has two applications. However, since examining intrinsic-nature emptiness through the four tetralemmas of non-ceasing finds it unattainable, this is precisely the non-empty that is empty, called the ultimate truth, which is the four witherings. Examining the existence of intrinsic nature through the four tetralemmas of non-arising finds it unattainable, which is precisely the non-existent that exists, called the form of dharma-nature; the sūtra says: 'Relinquishing impermanent form, one obtains permanent form,' which is the four flourishings. By using these four tetralemmas of self and other to seek and examine arising and ceasing, not permanent and not annihilated, not one and not different, not coming and not going, sentient beings thereby awaken to the Middle Way of the three contemplations of withering, flourishing, and neither withering nor flourishing in the sūtra. These are called the four tetralemmas of self and other. The manner in which the initial 'eight negations' of the *Dazhidulun* are used to expound the Buddha's sūtra is like this.