Great Cessation-and-Contemplation Volume I

2. Conventionality as continuity. If you cannot become awakened (through the above logical analysis of conventionality as causally arising), then turn your attention to "conventionality as continuity" to deconstruct (mistaken views). Why? Because even though, by means of the fourfold deconstruction (of views) from the perspective of conventionality as causally arising (you should see that) the arising of thoughts cannot be obtained, if you observe the thoughts (and views) that manifest themselves now, the arising and perishing of these thoughts is continuous and unending. How can one say simply that they are "nonarising"? As for these thoughts, is it that first one thought perishes, and a later thought arises? Or is it that a prior thought does not perish before the later thought arises? Or is it that a prior thought both perishes and does not perish, and then the later thought arises? Or does a prior thought neither perish nor not perish before the later thought arises? If a prior thought does not perish before another thought arises, this means that a thought gives rise to a thought by itself and that both arisings appear together, so that there is no (distinct) "actor" and "acted upon." If the "nature" of arising exists in the prior thought, which arises as the later thought, does this "nature" exist or not exist? If it exists, it is not (merely) a nature, and if it does not exist then it cannot arise, as explained previously. What if the later thought arises after the prior thought perishes? [In the previous example we said that] an arising while the prior (thought) had not yet perished is called having "selfness" [or "own-being"], that is, the arising of a later thought (on its own). Now in this case the arising depends on the 64c

457 457

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

perishing; nonperishing [that is, "arising"] aspires for perishing. What is this if not an "other-nature"? As for this "other-nature" within perishing, is there arising because the arising exists, or is there arising because the arising does not exist? Suppose we say that arising exists for this arising; however, arising and perishing are mutually exclusive. This is the arising of arising; how can it be said that arising perishes? Suppose we say that arising does not exist in perishing; but how is nothing able to result in arising? Suppose the "nature" of arising exists in perishing, but we can deconstruct (this idea of) nature as explained above. Suppose the prior thought both perishes and does not perish for the arising of the later thought? If perishing is already associated with perishing, and if nonperishing is already associated with nonperishing, or if nonperishing is merged or combined with perishing to result in arising, then these are examples of arising together. But "arising together" is itself contradictory (and mutually exclusive). How can mutually exclusive factors result in arising? Again, suppose that each arises individually? This contains two faults. Each cannot arise individually (and independently), and neither can they arise merged together. Suppose the "nature" of arising exists within perishing and nonperishing. Does this (nature) exist or not exist? If the nature has a fixed existence, how can it be called "perishing" or "nonperishing"? If this (nature) does not have a fixed existence, then again how can it be called "perishing" or "nonperishing"? This cannot avoid the mistakes (of the two extremes) of annihilationism and eternalism, which cause people to fall into the mistake of (thinking that things arise) together. Suppose that the prior thought neither perishes nor does not perish, and yet the later thought arises in the mind. Does this "neither arising nor not arising" exist, or does this "neither arising nor not arising" not exist? If it exists, then it does not lack a cause. If it does not exist, the lack of a cause cannot result in arising. Suppose that the "nature" of arising exists in the lack of a cause; but then this "nature" would be a "cause." How could you say that there is lack of cause? If it does not exist, then what can arise from nothing? In this way, if we follow the inferences of the tetralemma regarding conventionality as continuity, we discover that thoughts (and views) are unobtainable and the four natures (of arising from one's self, from another, from both, or from neither) have no reality, then mental attachments will weaken. Thoughts exist only as verbal designations; these words do not abide 458

458

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

(eternally or substantially), neither internally nor externally nor somewhere in between. Again, they have no eternal self-existence. Their continuity is without (essential) nature; this is the deconstruction of (the concept of) nature from the perspective of the worldly truth. These designations are empty in nature. Their continuity is without designation; this is the deconstruction of the conventional from the perspective of the real truth. "Designations" imply the "emptiness of marks"; "nature" and "marks" are both empty, and so forth as explained previously regarding the eighteen types of emptiness. This is called the contemplation of entering or realizing emptiness from conventionality. 3. Conventionality as relativity. If realization was not obtained (through the above analysis), you should conjecture by comparing thoughts as existing with thoughts as not existing. This is different from the above (analysis of conventionality as causally arising and as continuity) in that the delusions of relativity arise. The perspective of causally arising involves taking and merging the two dharmas of senses and their objects for the sake of (speaking of) causal arising. The perspective of continuity involves vertically grappling with the intentional mental faculty from the prior to later (thoughts) for the sake of (speaking of) continuity. Approaching arising and perishing from a vertical perspective is to consider (arising and) perishing with distinct (individual characteristics). A distinct (individual perspective of arising and) perishing is narrow. Now, "conventionality as relativity" is a comparison of general (or shared characteristics of arising and) perishing. This meaning is broad.

The general or common (characteristics of arising and) perishing is as follows. It is like the three types of unconditioned (nothingness as discussed above); these do not involve "perishing" per se, but they warrant being referred to as "nonarising." To speak of the arising of thoughts in relative comparison to the nonarising of empty space; this is "conventionality as relativity." If you do not attain awakening through the above analysis, but instead this causes the above delusions [associated with conventionality as causal arising and continuity] so that this (later) delusion [associated with conventionality as relativity] arises together (with the above delusions); this is called a "concurrence of causes." Or if the above delusions already exist and again arise with this (later) delusion, it is referred to as "continuing 65a

459 459

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

beyond." Again, "concurrence of causes" refers to the arising of the root of consciousness in response to the objects of nonarising phenomena; this refers to (conventional reality as) causally arisen. The relativity of continuity is caused by the above conventional thoughts; this refers to (conventional reality as) continuity. Therefore, we speak of "concurrent causes." "Continuing beyond" refers to the arising of delusions that are not of the general or common (characteristics of arising and) perishing regarding the above two kinds of conventionality. Now (delusions) do arise in terms of the general or common (characteristics of arising and) perishing; how can this not be (the meaning of) "continuing beyond"? This interpretation is different from the old ones [such as that of Zhizang of Kaishansi], but I have borrowed these terms to signify the characteristics of conventionality as relativity. Now, if we examine these thoughts, is it (1) that thoughts arise in (relative) relation to the nonarising of thoughts, or is it that (2) thoughts arise in relation to the existence of thoughts, or is it (3) that thoughts arise in relation to both the arising and nonarising of thoughts, or is it that (4) thoughts arise in relation to neither arising nor nonarising?

(1) If thoughts arise in relation to nonarising, does this "nonarising" exist or does this "nonarising" not exist? (2) If they arise in relation to existence, this is a relative existence. (If they arise in relation to nonexistence,) how can there be a relative nonexistence? (3) If this is a mutual relationship between existences, then this is an arising from itself [which is untenable]. If the nonarising does not exist, then how can there be a relationship (between anything)? (4) If it is just that this is a relationship between nonexistences that yet gives rise to thoughts, then all is nonexistent (nothingness), and yet this nonexistence gives rise to thoughts. Nonexistence yearns for existence; this nonexistence would involve "arising from another" [which is untenable]. Again, suppose that although nonarising does not exist, yet it has the "nature" of existence, and that in relation to this nature we can know that there are thoughts. Is this "nature" "former arising" or "pre-arising"? If it is "former arising," then the thought has already arisen. How can it be called a "nature"? If the nature is "pre-arising," then how can this pre-arising give rise [to anything]? If thoughts arise in relation to arising, then arising is in turn related to arising; but how can "long" be in relation to "long"? This has no meaning. How, then, can one obtain the arising of thoughts? Suppose 460

460

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

nonarising is related to arising, and therefore there is the arising of thoughts. But this is like obtaining the existence of "long" through the relation of "long" and "short." This falls into two faults. Suppose each exists, but then two arisings are together [which is untenable]. Suppose each do not exist; but this is completely untenable, as explained above. Suppose the arising of thoughts involves a relation between neither arising nor nonarising? The Middle Treatise says, "Arising is not possible through causes and conditions; how can it be possible through no causes and conditions?" Again, does this "lack of cause" exist or not exist? If it exists, it in turn is related to existence. If it does not exist, then it is related to nonexistence. How, then, can it be said to lack a cause? Suppose we say that there is a "nature"? Does this nature exist or not exist? If the nature exists, does it arise or not arise? If it arises, then how can it be said to be (just) a "nature"? If it does not arise, then how is it able to arise?

If you follow the tetralemma in this way, you discover that the arising of thoughts as relative conventionality is unobtainable. Your thoughts that are attached (to mistaken views) are thus weakened, and you do not give rise to (the idea of a substantial) nature or reality, but (realize) that they have existence merely as conventional designations. The arising of conventional designations is not an arising (of substantial being); these words do not exist (substantially), neither internally nor externally nor in between, nor do they have eternal self-existence. These words have no (substantial) existence (as their referents); if you seek their "nature," it is unobtainable. This is the destruction or deconstruction of "nature" as the worldly truth. This is called "the emptiness of nature." If you seek the name, you find that it is unobtainable; this is the deconstruction of conventionality as the real truth. This is called "the emptiness of marks." Again, if you seek the sense realms in terms of [essential] natures or marks, you find that they are unobtainable. This is called the "emptiness of dharmas." And so forth for the eighteen types of emptiness as explained above.

This is called "entering emptiness from conventionality," opening the eye of wisdom, and perceiving the supreme meaning. It is not merely that the delusions of the mistaken views of the three types of conventionality are removed, but that all the delusions and mistaken views will be purified and correct wisdom made manifest. This is called "penetrating the gate of 65b

461 461

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

nonarising through cessation-and-contemplation." Again, (the practice of) cessation-and-contemplation accomplishes the gate of nonarising. If you still do not realize awakening (through the above analysis), then you should utilize cessation-and-contemplation to skillfully deconstruct the mistaken views of conventionality. Alternate between (practice based on) faith and (practice based on) the Dharma methods (of meditation) to accomplish and realize the way of preparatory means and thus overcome the mistaken views of being. Immeasurable afflictions can all be overcome. Because they are overcome, this is called (a state of) good yet (still) defiled five aggregates. Since these are overcome, mistaken views of being do not arise. However, this time mistaken views of nonbeing (or nothingness) will enter your calculations and should be deconstructed as I will explain below. 2. The nonarising of non-Being (or nothingness). The deconstruction of these mistaken views (of nothingness) varies depending on (those whose practice is based on faith through) hearing or (those whose practice is based on the Dharma method of meditation or) pondering. People with superior faculties will come to know both arising and nonarising through hearing of the contemplation of arising, and thus destroy attachments and attain awakening. People with middling faculties have light attachments, so they can realize the overcoming of mistaken views through (skillful) means and good conditions of the defiled five aggregates. Those of inferior faculties have heavy attachments, and so they grasp hard onto these attachments and, hearing that arising is deconstructed and unobtainable, they then take "nonarising" as the truth, thus giving rise to mistaken views concerning nonarising. Again, one should make a general and distinct detailed analysis of the destruction of this (mistaken view of nothingness).

1. General analysis. The general analysis is as follows. As it says in the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines:

The nonarising of consciousness is unobtainable; how much more so the arising of consciousness. Again, the arising of consciousness is unobtainable, how much more so the nonarising of consciousness. Arising and nonarising are both unobtainable.

In the Laṅkāvatāra Sutra there is an extensive discussion of the deconstruction of the mistaken views of nonarising. However, the principle of 462

462

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

nonarising is not something that can be known through conscious deliberation; how much less so through (passionate) emotions. If you abandon (the mistaken view of substantial) being but then take on (the mistaken view of) nonbeing [or "nothingness"], you are like an inchworm [that can only make a little progress]. Again, this is like a monkey. One should not, with vain delusion, grasp onto these attachments to mistaken views. This is the general analysis of the deconstruction (of mistaken views concerning nonarising).

2. Distinct detailed analysis. The distinctive detailed analysis is as follows. If practitioners use cessation-and-contemplation to deconstruct the three types of conventionality such as that of "causally arising," they realize that "natures" and "marks" [or "appearances"] and so forth (of the ten suchlike characteristics) are unobtainable. Having put an end (to mistaken views), they enter meditative concentration wherein there are no relative forms such as "internal and external" or "before and after." They dwell in quiescent concentration, awake yet oblivious of body and mind, wherein all is pure. They arouse thoughts of nothingness, and spontaneously attain the cessation-and-contemplation of nonarising, thus (prematurely thinking that) they have accomplished both concentration and wisdom. However, they arouse attachment to the mistaken view (of nonbeing or emptiness) and become attached to this empty concept. This is not what the buddhas have taught. Why is this not what they have taught? If you contemplate thoughts and speculate thereupon, you will arouse a minute part of meditative concentration and give rise to a partial understanding of emptiness. This then becomes a mistaken view of emptiness; how can the correspondence of your thoughts with such (an understanding of) phenomenal objects be equated with (a full understanding of) nonarising? The Great Treatise explains briefly that there are two types of contemplations of emptiness: Buddhist and non-Buddhist. How are they different? "The non-Buddhist (contemplation) involves becoming passionately attached to the wisdom that comes from contemplating emptiness." Thus, those who face in this direction arouse a sense of the emptiness of sense objects and think that this is (the attainment of) nirvana. There are people who perceive (emptiness) in this way. Those who perceive in this way give rise to the mistaken view (of the substantial existence) of the body. Because of this view of the body, they have the ten afflictions, 65c

463 463

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

both sharp and dull, up to and including the eighty-eight (types of passionate afflictions) and so forth, and their activity in the cycle of birth and death is as explained above. Such offenses and faults are all based on and arise from (the one-sided view of) the emptiness of sense objects. They obstruct the true (realization of emptiness) and thus the path is lost; how can this be an encounter with nirvana! This is called an unorthodox non-Buddhist perception of emptiness. When disciples of the Buddha contemplate nonarising, if they arouse thoughts of emptiness—or when they arouse thoughts of emptiness—they know that this is a passionate attachment. Why? Because, what arises is a passionate attachment to phenomena. A phenomenon of passionate attachment is a matter of ignorance. Ignorance gives rise to the eighty-eight passionate afflictions such as the mistaken view of a (substantial) self. Each and every one of these includes the delusions of the three types of conventionality. Finally, (the disciples of the Buddha) are not attached (to these mistaken views) as true nonarising.

What are the three types of conventionality (regarding the mistaken view of nonbeing or nothingness)? Suppose that, as outlined above, the mistaken views of being of the three types of conventionality are overcome and you realize the view of nonbeing. The nonarising phenomenal object presents itself to the intentional mental faculty, and this gives rise in the mind to a thought of emptiness; this is conventionality as causal arising. The mental process that arises thus perishes, and therefore there is the arising of a nonarising thought; this is conventionality as continuity. Suddenly there is a "nonarising" in contrast to an "arising" of an existence; this is conventionality as relativity. If we were to speculate concerning the arising of this nonarising thought, is it (1) that the arising comes from the mind, or that (2) the arising comes from the phenomenal object, or (3) from both, or (4) separate from them? (1) If it arises from the mind, does it arise from the mental sense faculty or does it arise from consciousness? If it arises from the sense organ, does consciousness arise because consciousness exists in the sense organ, or does consciousness arise because consciousness does not exist (in the sense organ)? If consciousness exists in the sense organ, that sense organ is not just a sense organ. If the consciousness exists in the sense organ, then it cannot be the place of its activity. But if the consciousness does not exist in the sense 464

464

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

organ, how can consciousness arise there? Suppose the "nature" of arising consciousness exists in the sense organ. Does this "nature" exist or not exist? If the nature exists, then the nature of consciousness and consciousness itself are both one and different. If one, then the nature is the consciousness. If different, then how can something different give rise to it? If we examine the thoughts as arising from themselves, this also is unobtainable. This is all as explained in detail above.

(2) Suppose nonarising thoughts arise based on phenomenal objects. Do these objects exist in the thoughts or not exist in the thoughts? If they exist in the thoughts, then they cannot be the place (of activity). If they do not exist, they are not able to give rise (to thoughts). Again, are these objects one or different from (thoughts)? If one, then they cannot act as the place (of activity). If different, then they are not able to give rise (to thoughts). If we examine the possibility of different thoughts, this also is unobtainable. This is all as explained in detail above.

(3) Suppose there is the arising of nonarising thoughts due to the combination of the (mental) organ and phenomenal objects. This (supposition) has two faults, as explained previously.

(4) Again, suppose there is the arising of nonarising thoughts apart from the (mental) organ and apart from phenomenal objects. This is unobtainable due to the interplay of causes and conditions. Why? (The idea that nothing arises) without a cause is (impossible,) as explained above. It should be known that nonarising thoughts come neither from themselves nor from others nor from a merging (of the two) nor separate from (the two), so they do not have these four natures. Since they do not have these four natures, this is called "the emptiness of (essential) natures." The emptiness of natures means that though there are no (substantial) thoughts, it is (conventionally) said that there are thoughts. "There is only verbal designation; this verbal designation does not exist either internally or externally." This is called the "emptiness of marks" and so forth for the eighteen kinds of emptiness, as explained above. This is to realize emptiness from conventionality and perceive the supreme meaning. It means that you do not merely deconstruct (the delusions of) conventionality regarding the mistaken view of nonexistence but remove all (delusions and mistaken views), from the higher delusions to the lower obstructions, and attain correct wisdom. If there are 66a

465 465

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

some (faults) that are not yet extracted, diligently use cessation-and-contemplation to skillfully cultivate (their removal). If you alternate between (the practices based on) faith and the Dharma (method of meditation) to accomplish the way of (skillful preparatory) means, you can overcome suffering and the causes of suffering, and overcome all the eighty-eight afflictions of the sense fields. Since these can be overcome, this is called a defiled yet good (mental state). Through the power gained from such diligent cultivation, the mistaken view of nothingness within (the delusions of) conventionality will not arise again. Instead, this time you will face the mistaken views of both being and nonbeing within (the delusions of) conventionality. These are to be deconstructed next.

2. Destroying the multiple views: deconstructing the mistaken views of both being and nonbeing. Next, the deconstruction of the three conventionalities of the mistaken views of both being and nonbeing is as follows. When a practitioner utilizes cessation-and-contemplation well and overcomes the delusions of the mistaken views of nothingness, then the conventionalities of (the mistaken views of) nothingness do not arise. This may represent progress that is (an attainment of) a partial concentration and wisdom, in which you arouse mental correspondence with (the idea of) both being and nonbeing. Then you can say, "If thoughts do not exist, who is it who knows this nonarising? 'Nonarising' does not exist, but the one who knows this does exist." When these thoughts arise, you experience the mistaken view of both being and nonbeing. If you take this as the real truth and become firmly attached to it so that you cannot get rid of it, you will not realize its faults. This is like Dīrghanakha, who thought he had attained the way but actually had realized (only the first two truths of) suffering and the causes of suffering and was not able to realize (his shortcomings). The Buddha pointed this out, and he was finally able to attain awakening. People who arouse mistaken thoughts are the same as this. Made delusory by the poison of these views, they cannot know the correct truth. If they hear (a teaching) that points out (their faulty views), then their thoughts of attachment are quickly resolved, as if blown away by the wind. How can this be pointed out? The Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines says, "the five aggregates (of receiving sensual experience) all do not receive experience (substantially)." How, then, can you (substantially) accept or experience phenomenal objects as both existing 466

466

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

and not existing? How can this not be the aggregate of sensation? Through coming in contact with these images and forms (produced through sensations), and through the functioning of these phenomena, these phenomena are fully discriminated; the other four aggregates arise as a matter of course. In this way (the aggregates such as) sensations and conceptions all are called "defiled and impure" [because they involve mistaken views]. These mistaken views rely on the aggregate of visible form. Again, the mental organ receives the sensation of both being and nonbeing from sense objects, and this is a sense field. The mutual crossover of sense faculty and object is called "entering" (experience). This is called "suffering."

Again, if (the concept of) a "self" is active and experienced, and you can know that this phenomenon is a conventional designation, then the mistaken view of a self arises. If you arouse a view of the self (as substantial) then you have an extreme view, and if you reject causality, this is a deviant view. If you take this for the way, this is (the mistaken view of) attachment to precepts. If you take this for nirvana, this is an attachment to a mistaken view. If others disagree, you are angry; if they agree you are happy; you are attached to your own understanding and slander others. Not knowing the truths of suffering and the causes of suffering, you are ignorant, and later this will lead to great doubt. In this way, these ten kinds of afflictions also include the eighty-eight (afflictions) as one passes through the three realms. This is contrary to the true way but in accordance with samsara, and arise in the thoughts (based on) the mistaken views of nonexistence of both existence and nonexistence. Again, these thoughts of mistaken views include the three conventionalities, which can be known as explained above. Now, destroying or deconstructing the views of the three conventionalities by using the four possibilities of the tetralemma should be understood as individually listed above. After destroying or deconstructing them in this way, you should know that the aggregates and the sense fields (as understood through) the four possibilities of the three conventionalities are all without a true (substantial) nature. This is the "emptiness of natures." They have merely verbal designation, and this verbal designation is empty; this is the "emptiness of marks." "Nature" and "marks" are empty, and so forth for the eighteen types of emptiness as explained above. This is to realize the supreme meaning and to manifest correct wisdom. If you still do not realize this, you should use the (four) 66b

467 467

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

methods of instruction and alternate (practices based on) faith and the Dharma (methods of meditation) to skillfully cultivate cessation-and-contemplation, overcome all the mistaken views, and realize the expedient and good yet (still) defiled dharma (attainments). Although you have now overcome (the mistaken views of) both being and nonbeing so that they no longer arise, next you must deal with the views of neither existence nor nonexistence. Their deconstruction is as explained below in the next section. 4. Destroying the integrated or combined views: Deconstructing the mistaken views of neither being nor nonbeing. Next, the deconstruction of mistaken views of neither being nor nonbeing is as follows. Above we have discussed diligently utilized means to overcome the views of being and nonbeing. Now, in addition, (we will discuss mistaken views from the perspective of) arousing thoughts that are apart from being and nonbeing. What does this refer to? If thoughts are determined to exist, then they cannot be nothing. If thoughts are determined to be nothing, then they cannot exist. How can they be both being and nonbeing? If they are not determined to exist, then they do not exist. If they are not determined to be nothing, then they are not nothing. "Nonbeing" means they do not arise. "Not nonbeing" means they do not perish. To transcend the polarity of "being" and "nonbeing" is the Middle Path. This is the same as (the teaching of) the Middle Treatise. Why is this so? The view of being explained above corresponds to (the first line in the verse), "phenomena that arise through conditioned arising." The view of nonbeing corresponds to "emptiness." Both being and nonbeing corresponds to "conventionality." "Neither being nor nonbeing" corresponds to the Middle.

If you are firmly attached to these thoughts and think that they are true, then you will arouse immeasurable faults and mistakes. Why is this so? Those who take these thoughts (of mistaken views) as true take empty words to be true words, and thus give rise to (1) the mistaken view of (attachment to) words. Therefore, they are not true. If they were true, then these thoughts should be permanent, blissful, having selfhood, and pure. However, these thoughts arise and perish, so they are not permanent. These thoughts involve receiving sensations [which necessarily involve suffering], so they are not blissful. They do not involve full mastery, so they are not a (self-sufficient) self. They are defiled, so they are not pure. They give rise to thoughts of 468

468

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

(substantial) selfhood, so this is (2) the mistaken view of a (substantial) body. With the mistaken view of a (substantial) body, the question of being or nonbeing cannot avoid (affirming the mistaken view of) neither being nor nonbeing, like an inchworm [that can only make a little progress]; this is called (3) an extreme view. If we say that the view of neither being nor nonbeing is the Middle Path, this is common to all (inadequate) samsaric views, and thus is a deluded and ignorant thesis. To say that something that is not the path is the path, and something that is not a letter is a letter, is called (4) (the mistaken view) of attachment to precepts. To say that realizing the thoughts of neither being nor nonbeing is nirvana is to be endowed with all the sharp and dull afflictions of the sense fields; this is called attachment to views, and to (mistakenly) say that "neither being nor nonbeing" is the correct Dharma teaching. Or, to say that the destruction of all worldly causes and conditions is called "nonbeing" and the destruction of all transworldly causes and conditions is called "nonbeing"—(such an unacceptable logic) destroys the dignity of right views and is not accepted even by worldly (non-Buddhist) principles. How could it be accepted as a transworldly principle? These (mistaken views) are aroused by the mistaken view of the self, (which leads to the accumulation of mistaken views) as large as Mount Sumeru; by not taking evil to be empty, one accepts that which is incorrect as correct. This is called a (5) "deviant view." If you follow and approve (these mistaken views), this is called (6) (the poison of) "passionate craving." To slander those who disagree is (7) (the poison of) "anger." If you are not conscious of (the difference between) these thoughts as (like that between) poisonous weeds and medicinal herbs (lit., "medicine king"), this is (8) (the poison of) "ignorance." To act presumptuously for oneself and insultingly toward others is (9) "arrogance." All of this will lead to (10) great doubt. In short, there are ten types of faults [that is, the ten afflictions] which, if explained in detail, cannot be exhausted. These types of faults all emerge from the mistaken view of "neither being nor nonbeing."

Again, each and every one of these faults all include the three types of conventionality, as explained above. If you are to destroy these mistaken views of conventionality, you should use the method of cessation-and-contemplation of the tetralemma as described above. (Mistaken views will be) gradually destroyed or deconstructed, as explained above. 66c

469 469

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Again, the disclosure of various mistaken views of the five aggregates signifies the truth of suffering; the disclosure of (the mistaken views of) the ten types of afflictions signify the truth of the causes of suffering; utilizing cessation-and-contemplation for destroying (undesirable dharmas) signifies the truth of the path; overcoming and negating various mistaken views signifies the truth of extinction. All non-Buddhist paths and mistaken understandings, and the immeasurable faults and mistakes that come from perverted assessments of the Buddha Dharma, can all be destroyed through utilizing these Four Noble Truths. It is not impossible for an ordinary ignorant person to reform and become a noble sage. This was possible even with the power (of the teachings) when the Tathāgata first preached the Four Noble Truths of the Āgamas [of the Tripiṭaka Teachings]. How much more so (is it true) for the threefold types of the Four Noble Truths of the Mahayana, and what (undesirable dharmas) cannot be destroyed? If you destroy the mistaken views (associated with the idea) of neither being nor nonbeing, then all delusions are also severed and obliterated, and you arouse true wisdom. This is called insight into the supreme meaning by entering or realizing emptiness from conventionality. If you are not able to enter or realize in this way, you should utilize cessation-and-contemplation, alternating between (practices of) faith (that rely on the teachings) and (practices of) the Dharma (methods of meditation), skillfully cultivating the means of the four appropriate methods. If you overcome the various mistaken views and delusions and your grasping thoughts weaken, you can dwell on the path of preparatory means and accomplish the dharmas that are still defiled. When the mistaken views no longer arise, you can cross and enter into (the realm wherein one is faced with mistaken views that are) beyond words. These are to be destroyed or deconstructed as explained below.

The reason I have explained the mistaken views and faults point-by-point (in the above sections) is so that those who practice diligently can, through contemplation of the mind, be conscious of (the danger of) poisonous weeds and clearly understand (the benefits of) medicinal herbs. If you understand this intent, finally you will not make false assessments. The sections and points are complicated and vexing, but if they are taken in order and not confused you will be able to fully understand, and can discuss the path. But for those who insist on being like the blind, how can they know (the color of) milk?

470

470

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

5. Destroying the views of conventionality that are beyond words. Next is the destruction or deconstruction of mistaken views of conventionality that are beyond words. If you are able to destroy (mistaken views and so forth,) as discussed above, and progress to where you arouse meditative concentration and wisdom, you will be fully awake with clear serenity. Next you will arouse a different understanding, saying, "Things exist in this way [that is, empty of substantial Being and with only conventional existence], and this is the cycle of life and death. In terms of the tetralemma, everything is conventional, empty, delusionary, and without substantial reality. The principle of reality is beyond words and transcends the tetralemma. This is (the true meaning of) nonarising." However, although you think that this understanding goes beyond the tetralemma, it does not go beyond it (in all ways). In brief, there are three types of (mistaken views as understood through) the tetralemma that this does go beyond: first, the individual; second, the multiple; and third, the integrated or combined (types of mistaken views). If we say that the principle of reality is beyond words, this does go beyond the tetralemma of the individual type but does not go beyond the second phrase of the multiple mistaken views, and does not go beyond the first phrase of the integrated or combined mistaken views. Thus, you should realize how (deeply) the web of mistaken views is concealed and intertwined (within our existence), and how difficult it is to escape it. The Lotus Sutra says, "There are spirits and demons here and there and all about."

All of the various mistaken views of the multiple and combined type each incorporate the three conventionalities of the truths of suffering and the causes of suffering. The contemplation to deconstruct these conventionalities is all as explained above. All who are able to cultivate the steps on the path, regarding the various mistaken views, should attain awakening point-by-point, enter or realize emptiness from conventionality, and perceive the supreme meaning. If there are those who have not yet attained (awakening) even though they have overcome all of the individual, multiple, and combined types of various mistaken views, and have accomplished the good yet defiled five aggregates, the mistaken views will no longer arise and they will make progress in arousing meditative understanding. Again, they will say, "We have gone beyond and transcended the individual, multiple, and integrated or combined types of (mistaken views as understood through) the 67a

471 471

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

tetralemma. This is beyond verbalization and beyond discursive thought. Things are utterly clear and pure. This is the meaning of nonarising, the path that is absolutely beyond words." One who conjectures in this way in turn (embraces) the mistaken "view of unexplainability and beyond words." How can this be regarded as the correct path? So, you say that this is (absolutely) beyond words, but in the final analysis it is not beyond words. Why? Because if you are calling "absolute" or "beyond" that which is in relative contrast to that which is not absolute, then it is relatively absolute only in contrast to that to which it is relative, and if it is relative in contrast to something, it cannot be called (truly) "absolute" or "beyond." This is like trying to avoid space without being exempt from the principle (of space). Next, I will vertically deconstruct the idea of "not absolute" or "not beyond." Since the thoughts (of mistaken views) do not end, the nonverbal mistaken views are included in the arising of all the causes and conditions of samsara. How can these be said to be "absolute" or "beyond" or "cut off"? As explained point-by-point above, all (mistaken views) are to be deconstructed both horizontally and vertically: the single (individual) views are to be deconstructed horizontally, and the layered (multiple and combined) views are to be deconstructed vertically. (The mistaken views based on) conventionality as causal arising are to be deconstructed horizontally; those based on conventionality as continuity are to be deconstructed vertically; those based on conventionality as relativity are to be deconstructed both horizontally and vertically; and the general deconstruction (of all mistaken views) is neither horizontal nor vertical.

Ordinarily (the mistaken views are) deconstructed horizontally, but now I will discuss their vertical deconstruction. If you have thoughts of attachment (to views that are beyond words), something will (be caused to) arise. What will arise? The five (contemplations for) putting the mind at rest? The general and distinct (states of mindfulness)? (The "four good roots" of) heat, summit, patience, and supreme in the mundane world? The arising of true clarity and patience regarding suffering, (that is, the eight kinds of forbearance)? The arising of deep consideration and pondering? The arising of the path through "thirst for wisdom"? The arising of insight into truth by those on (the stage of) the eighth person? The arising of supremacy in supranormal powers and vows to support (the overcoming of) latent habitual tendencies? The arising 472

472

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

of understanding like that of the awakening of the three levels of erudition for overcoming (delusions)? The arising of the true understanding like those of the ten noble (bhūmi) stages? The arising of awakening like that of (the stage of) the iron wheel-turning king? The arising of awakening like that of (the stage of) the copper wheel-turning king? The arising of mastery to pervade the universe (like a buddha)? If we look at these various arisings and examine your thoughts of attachment (that accompany them), how can you say that they involve no disposition (toward delusion or cessation-and-contemplation) and that they are not "views" when they are indeed all "views"? If you suppose that thoughts do not arise, that "nonbeing" (or "nothingness") and "nonarising" are the same, then what do you mean by "nonarising"? Do you mean that views do not arise, that deluded conceptions do not arise, that latent habitual tendencies do not arise, that the dust-like delusions do not arise, that ignorance does not arise, that karmic deeds do not arise, that karmic retribution does not arise, that volitions do not arise, and that the principle (of reality) does not arise?

Some people in the world say, "Nonarising means that the Buddha is nonarising [or, "the nonarising of nonarising is buddhahood"]; and (the awakening of) the path is the Dharma[-body] buddha [or "Buddha as the Dharma body"]." Now I will explain these words. Buddhahood is threefold. The nonarising of the principle (of reality) is the Dharma-[body] buddha. The nonarising of ignorance is the buddha of recompense (to save others). The nonarising of dust-like delusions and mistaken views and conceptions is the (historical) buddha of transformation. Again, the nonarising of ignorance is the Dharma[-body] buddha, the nonarising of mistaken views and conceptions is the buddha of recompense, and the nonarising of dust-like delusions is the buddha of transformation. Again, the nonarising of the levels of karmic and volitional activity is the buddha of transformation, the nonarising of the karmic recompense of wisdom is the buddha of recompense, and the nonarising of the nature of reality is the Dharma[-body] buddha. Again, the buddha of transformation arises from (buddha-nature as the practices of) conditional causes, the buddha of recompense arises from (the buddha-nature of wisdom as) the "complete cause" (of buddhahood), and the Dharma[-body] buddha arises from (buddha-nature as) the "direct cause" (of buddhahood). Thus, the "arising" of threefold buddhahood is "nonarising," and "nonarising" is the 473 473

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

67b

"arising" of threefold buddhahood. If you hear (and understand) the letter A, you understand all meanings [of words that are comprised of letters]. So it is also with a single understanding. [As the Great Nirvana Sutra says,] "A sharp hoe hacks into the earth, (removing) rocks and gravel, until it reaches the diamonds (buried therein)." By hearing of one nonarising, you can universally understand the nonarising of the universe. By understanding all nonarising (in this way), you can examine your thoughts of attachment (to the idea of nonarising as beyond words) and see that it is unacceptable. How can you say that it is not a mistaken view?

Some person has criticized the Middle Treatise, saying: (The idea of) nonarising and nonperishing is not the profound truth. Why? Passionate afflictions are phenomena that arise. After revolving through the three phases (of arising, changing, and perishing), these phenomena perish. All you are saying is that "nonarising and nonperishing" is not this kind of arising and perishing. This is merely a realization of emptiness, and not an insight into the meaning of the Middle.

The teachers of the Middle Treatise understand this as follows: "Neither arising nor perishing means that it is neither nonarising nor nonperishing that manifests the Middle Path." This interpretation may help (to understand the idea of) the Middle, but it is a disservice to the text and misses the meaning. Why? Nāgārjuna's intent is to combine the Shared [Teachings of emptiness with that of the Tripiṭaka Teachings] and include the Distinct [Teachings of conventionality], and thus says "neither arising nor perishing." "Nonarising" refers to the idea that the twenty-five realms of existence do not substantially arise (because they are empty), and that after revolving through the three phases (of arising, changing, and perishing) they do not (substantially) perish. (If you realize this,) you are able to destroy the twenty types of mistaken views of the body and accomplish the ways of those from the stream-enterer to the arhat who has nothing more to learn. Thus, this combines the intent of the Shared Teachings (of emptiness) and also includes the intent of the Tripiṭaka Teachings. The idea "both arising and perishing" is the same position as that of "arising," taking nirvana as merely emptiness and quiescent extinction. (The idea that) things do not arise in this way and do not perish in this way avoids both extremes (of eternalism and annihilationism), and 474

474

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

thus includes the intent of the Distinct Teachings. Arising and perishing [should be understood in terms of the threefold truth of the Middle Treatise that] "phenomena that arise through conditioned arising are simultaneously empty, conventional, and the Middle." Things do not arise, because they are "simultaneously empty." They do not perish, because they are "simultaneously conventional." They neither arise nor perish," because they are the Middle Path. If we understand and interpret (nonarising) according to this text, it combines the two [Tripiṭaka and Shared Teachings], includes the Distinct Teachings, and manifests the Middle [Perfect Teaching]. The four meanings are there. Nāgārjuna's ingenuity was in broadly including all Dharma teachings in the single phrase "neither arising nor perishing" and thereby disclosing the Mahayana. (His critics, however,) even if they open their mouths and flap their tongues, just repeatedly stammer (like a madman ineffectively) "calling on a phoenix"; or even if they take up a brush and dip it in ink, they merely smear characters. They are only able to obtain a single meaning and lose the other three, and therefore they are (worse than useless) like a swelling tumor or protruding boil. Wishing to helpfully add (to understanding), they end up losing what they have.

1. Ten interpretations of nonarising in terms of the Fourfold Teachings. Now let me interpret (further) the single phrase "nonarising (and nonperishing)." Why include only four meanings? There are still further (meanings) that can be summarized in ten meanings of nonarising and not nonarising (or "neither arising nor perishing").

[1.] The first is that all dharmas should be deconstructed and destroyed and all words should be transformed. They are neither Being nor nothingness, they are beyond words and separate from verbal expression, and not one dharma enters your thoughts. This is one (interpretation) of nonarising (as beyond verbalization). This "nonarising" also does not arise, and therefore it is called "not nonarising." Ordinary emotional beings think that (the dharmas) are nonarising, but actually they do arise (conventionally). It is like saying that "nonconceptualization consists of no concepts at all," while, in fact, minute conceptions are being made. This is a mistaken view, a heterodox interpretation of "not nonarising." 475 475

67c

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

[2.] Second, followers of Vātsīputrīya conjectured that a "self" existed as the fifth inexpressible category. This is one example of "nonarising." Since this nonarising also does not arise, therefore it is "not nonarising." [3.] Those of the two vehicles (of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas) of the Tripiṭaka Teachings sever the mistaken views and conceptions of the triple world. Thus, one "non(arising)" is that views do not (arise); another "non(arising)" is that deluded conceptions do not (arise); therefore, this is called "not nonarising," and latent habitual delusions still arise. [4.] The buddhas of the Tripiṭaka Teachings have completely exhausted both the explicit and latent (afflictions), so this is called "not nonarising." Thus, one "non(arising)" is that the explicit (afflictions) do not (arise); another "non(arising)" is that the latent (habitual afflictions) do not (arise). Therefore, this is called "not nonarising." This is the "not nonarising" of the analytical method (for realizing emptiness and nonarising). [5.] As for the Shared Teachings, (emptiness) is embodied by the mistaken views that are originally nonarising, and (emptiness) is embodied by the deluded conceptions that are originally nonarising. Therefore, this is called "not nonarising." The Sutra of the Questions of Viśeṣacintibrahma says, "I attained awakening through nonarising and actionlessness." Those of the two vehicles may realize the nonarising (emptiness) of mistaken views and conceptions, but the latent habitual tendencies still arise. [6.] As for the buddhas of the Shared Teachings who sit on the seat of awakening and completely exhaust both explicit and latent (afflictions of mistaken views and conceptions), this is "not nonarising." This is the "not nonarising" of (ordinary) constituent (samsara).

[7.] As for the people of the Distinct Teachings, they sever both the shared and distinct delusions. One non(arising) is the non(arising) of the shared (delusions), and the other non(arising) is the non(arising) of the distinct (delusions). Therefore, this is called "not nonarising." This is called the "not nonarising" of [severing] one [lower] degree [of delusions] and [attaining] one part (of wisdom), and [severing] a second [middling] degree [of delusions] and [attaining] a second part (of wisdom). But the higher parts [of delusions] still arise. [8.] As for the buddhas of the Distinct Teachings who exhaust the higher part [of delusions], this is called "not nonarising." But this is still the "not nonarising" of conventional means.

476

476

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

[9.] As for the people of the Perfect Teaching, one non(arising) is the non(arising) of the shared (delusions), and the other non(arising) is the non(arising) of the distinct (delusions). Therefore, this is called "not nonarising." However, since they still dwell in the causal stages, the practices, wisdom, recompense, and so forth of the higher stages still arise. [10.] As for (one who has attained) sublime awakening and complete wisdom, this wisdom is nonarising. Ignorance is completely exhausted, so the delusions are nonarising. Practices, wisdom, recompense, and so forth are ultimately completed, so they are not nonarising (and "neither arise nor perish"). Again, since this is the ultimate truth, there is only one "not nonarising." Since it is the ultimate perfect principle of reality, there is only one "not nonarising." Again, this is the basis of the principle of reality, and the basis is nonarising, so this is not nonarising (and "neither arising nor perishing"). (Thus, we can see that diverse) teachings are included and exhausted in the single phrase "nonarising," as explained above. (Diverse) teachings are included and exhausted in the single phrase "not nonarising" [or "neither arising nor perishing"]. When you use (the phrase) "nonarising," which (meaning of) "nonarising" do you intend? When you use (the phrase) "not nonarising," which (meaning of) "not nonarising" do you intend? Some others are not aware even of the (first) heterodox (meaning of) "not nonarising." How can they be aware of the last (perfect meaning of) "not nonarising"? How can these mistaken views not be recognized as unpleasant? They are painful and should be deconstructed.

The vertical deconstruction of views as both existence and nonexistence, or neither existence nor nonexistence, is as explained above (in the section) on "Arousing the Great Thought of Awakening," and on absolute (cessation-and-contemplation) in the section on "The Explanation of Terms." If you say thoughts "both arise and do not arise," then what is it that arises or does not arise? Does it mean that mistaken views do not arise but true ones do arise? Does it mean that mistaken conceptions do not arise but true ones do arise? Does it mean that the latent habitual afflictions do not arise but true wisdom does arise? Does it mean that the dust-like afflictions do not arise but that the functioning of (supranormal) powers do arise? Does it mean that ignorance does not arise but the Middle Path does arise? Does it mean that internal karmic activity does not arise but external karmic activity does arise? 477 477

68a

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Does it mean that internal retribution does not arise but external retribution does arise? Does it mean that small (Hinayana) activity or practice does not arise but that large (Mahayana) practice does arise? Does it mean that one-sided principles do not arise but that the perfect principle of reality does arise? (What does it mean) to say "both arising and nonarising"? If it is not these meanings of "both arising and nonarising," then it is a mistaken view. If you say that thoughts "neither arise nor do not arise," then in what sense do things neither arise nor not arise? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising (that is realized) through analysis of (the two extremes of) annihilationism and eternalism, or the neither arising nor nonarising of realizing the essential (emptiness that is the Middle Path between the two extremes) of annihilationism and eternalism? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising (that is realized) with the double flow of awakening and insight at the eighth bhūmi stage (of the Tripiṭaka Teachings)? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is the attainment of nirvana when samsara is destroyed or deconstructed at the first bhūmi stage (of the Shared Teachings)? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is the result after (attaining) the ten bhūmi stages (of the Shared Teachings)? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is realized from (overcoming) the obstacles of the two extremes at the first stage of abodes (of the Distinct Teachings)? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is realized from progress on the Middle Path at the stages of the ten levels of practice (of the Perfect Teaching)? Does it mean the neither arising nor perishing that is realized at the stages of the ten levels of merit transference? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is realized at the ten bhūmi stages (of the Perfect Teaching)? Does it mean the neither arising nor nonarising that is realized at the ultimate stage of sublime awakening? If it is not these meanings of "neither arising nor nonarising," then it is a mistaken view. If you say "beyond words," there are many meanings to the term "beyond words"; what do you mean by "beyond words"? There are meanings for "beyond words" outside the individual four phrases (of the tetralemma). There are meanings for "beyond words" outside the multiple four phrases (of the tetralemma). The brahman practice of maintaining silence is also called "beyond words" [or to "cut off words"]. Again, Dīrghanakha did not accept all the teachings; this also is a kind of "cutting off of words." Vātsīputrīya 478

478

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

said that there is a self in (terms of) the worldly truth; the self is in the category of the inexpressible. "Inexpressible" also means "beyond words." In the Tripiṭaka Teachings, realizing the true and illuminating the real is said also to be inexpressible. Therefore, Śāriputra said, "I have heard that liberation is inexpressible." "Liberation" in the Tripiṭaka Teachings consists of four gates or methods for entering or realizing the true, so there are four types of inexpressibility. The people of the three vehicles of the Shared Teachings in the same way use the way of inexpressibility for severing passionate afflictions, so this also involves four gates of inexpressibility. People of the Distinct Teachings contemplate the nonverbal and inexpressible nature of the constantly abiding principle of reality, and so this also involves four gates of inexpressibility. The Perfect Teaching cannot be asserted or signified; Vimalakīrti kept his mouth closed and Mañjuśrī recognized (his wisdom). This also involves four gates of inexpressibility. Thus, there are many types of inexpressibility. Which meaning of inexpressibility do you mean? Your type of inexpressibility does not approach even the level of Vātsīputrīya, let alone the level of the four inexpressibilities of the Tripiṭaka Teachings. Why is this so? Vātsīputrīya speaks of inexpressibility in the context of the worldly truth and he does not conjecture concerning (the real truth of) nirvana. You are conjecturing concerning the real (truth), and therefore your knowledge does not approach that of Vātsīputrīya. Vātsīputrīya's is definitely a mistaken view; how can yours not be a mistaken view? It is clear that this kind of mistaken view broadly arouses passionate afflictions, as explained above. 2. Ten types of the tetralemma. Let me deconstruct (the idea of) "beyond words" even further. You say that which is "beyond words" exists outside the tetralemma. I will now clarify ten types of (understanding) the tetralemma. Which of these four types of the tetralemma do you say that (your meaning of) "beyond words" is outside of?

The ten types are:

[1.] The ordinary meaning of the tetralemma.

[2.] The inexhaustible tetralemma.

[3.] The tetralemma as "binding the levels together."

[4.] The tetralemma as "covering all (four) corners."

[5.] The tetralemma as attaining awakening.

479 479

68b

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

[6.] The tetralemma of comprehensive classification.

[7.] The tentative and real tetralemma.

[8.] Exposing and manifesting the tetralemma.

[9.] Losing the intent of the tetralemma.

[10.] Attaining the intent of the tetralemma.

[1.] The "ordinary" (meaning of the) tetralemma is the way the tetralemma is commonly expounded to both ordinary and noble people. This meaning should already be known.

[2.] The "inexhaustible" tetralemma refers to the tetralemma as including other (meanings of the) tetralemma and thus incalculably overflowing. These features were expressed above (in the discussion) on forty-eight types. [3.] The tetralemma as "binding the levels together" refers to discriminating among (the meanings of) the tetralemma and judging what is right and wrong, as with the individual, multiple, and combined types [of the tetralemma as discussed above]. Being attached to it without end is (the understanding) of the tetralemma by ordinary ignorant people; if not (being attached to) the meaning of the tetralemma is taken as the meaning of the tetralemma, this is (the understanding of) the tetralemma by noble ones. [4.] The tetralemma as "covering all (four) corners" refers to binding together and subsuming (the understanding of) ordinary people under the phrase of "being"; subsuming that of the two vehicles under the phrase of "nonbeing"; subsuming that of the bodhisattvas under the phrase of "both being and nonbeing"; and subsuming that of the Buddha under the phrase of "neither being nor nonbeing."

[5.] The tetralemma as "attaining awakening" refers to attaining awakening and realization through the tetralemma, so that the tetralemma perfects the four gates.

[6.] The tetralemma as "comprehensive classification" refers to (classifying) which Dharma teaching you have awakened to and realized according to the various possibilities of the tetralemma. If you distinguish according to Dharma teaching, then all Dharma gates can be classified. [7.] The tetralemma as "tentative and real" refers to the idea that, of the various Dharma teachings of the gate of the tetralemma, three of the four are tentative and one of the four is real.

480

480

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

[8.] "Exposing and manifesting" the tetralemma refers to the idea that if all types of the tetralemma are disclosed (as to their ultimate meaning), they "enter" the one real (meaning) of the tetralemma; if you "enter" and realize the real (meaning) of the tetralemma, (you realize that) all is inexpressible. This is the culmination of the Buddha's teaching of the tetralemma. [9] "Losing the intent" of the tetralemma refers to becoming attached to the. Buddha's (teaching of the) tetralemma and arousing arguments and conflict, thus being as faulty as ordinary people.

[10.] "Attaining the intent" of the tetralemma refers to when a bodhisattva perceives the flaw of losing the intent (of the tetralemma), and [like Nāgārjuna] writes Hinayana or Mahayana treatises to express the various meanings of the tetralemma of the Buddha, thus destroying attachments and removing delusions so that people can attain the (real and true) intent of the tetralemma and there is no longer a need to produce treatises or arguments. If you are not satisfied with these interpretations of "beyond words," then (in light of) the various meanings of the tetralemma outlined above, in what sense of "outside the tetralemma" do you mean by saying that the truth is beyond words?

3. Deconstructing the tetralemma vertically to show the superiority of Buddhism over Daoism. Previously we have deconstructed the tetralemma horizontally. Now I will vertically deconstruct the tetralemma as "beyond words."

There are many evil demonic monks in our time. They discard the precepts and return home (to lay life) and, afraid of being punished, go so far as to imitate the Daoists. Or they seek fame and profit and arrogantly discuss (the works of) Zhuangzi and Laozi. They pilfer ideas from the Buddha Dharma to settle (their own) heterodox scriptures. They push away what is elevated and adhere to what is base; they shirk from what is noble and associate with what is ignoble, assuming that [all teachings] are equal. They quote (the words of Laozi that) "the way that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way, and the name that can be named is not the eternal Name," claiming that this is the same as the Buddhist teaching of inexpressibility. However, (the similarity between these two ideas) is like insects chewing wood and (accidentally) producing (intelligible) characters. If we closely examine these principles 481 481

68c

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

(of Daoism), there is a chasm between their deviance and Buddhist correctness. Things that the foolish believe in are laughed at by those who are wise. Why? As I explained above, there are various (meanings of) "arising," various (meanings of) "nonarising," various (meanings of the) tetralemma, and various (meanings of) unexplainability. Your (meaning of "beyond words") is not (even at the level of the meaning of) unexplainability that is beyond the individual (phrases of the) tetralemma, let alone beyond the multiple or the combined (type of tetralemma), or even that of Vātsīputrīya. How can it be (at the level of the Tripiṭaka, Shared, Distinct, or Perfect Teachings)? [Reasons why Daoism and Buddhism are not comparable or on a par:] From the perspective of the basic principles of the (Buddha) Dharma, how can the terms "eternal name" and "eternal Way" mean the same (in both Buddhism and Daoism), and how can they be considered the same from the perspective of the features of their teachings? Even more so, how can they be considered on a par when you compare the (Buddhist) truths of suffering and the causes of suffering to (the Daoist teaching of) "revealing past transgressions and afflictions" [of possible evil influences from former lives or ancestors]? And even more so, how can they be considered on a par when one considers (the Buddhist teaching of) the steps on the path (compared to the practices of Daoism)? As for the essentials of the true Dharma, the basis is not the same (as Daoism), and the (extended) traces (of the two) are not the same either. The (phenomenal, historical) traces of the Buddha extend from (world to world and) age to age; he was truly a ruler of the golden metal ring (underlying) India. As for Laozi and Zhuangzi, one [Laozi] was only "the scribe at the base of a pillar" at the periphery of a small country in China, and [the other, Zhuangzi,] was (merely) a servant in the lacquer tree groves of the Song country. How can you compare these as being on a par (with the Buddha)! The Buddha has thirty-two major marks and eighty minor characteristics associated with his physical body, but Zhuangzi and Laozi were physically just ordinary, with ordinary forms that were small and stunted, ugly and worthless. A sutra says that the human form in (this world of) Jambudvīpa is like that of a demon. How can it be on a par with that of the Buddha! When the Buddha preached the Dharma he emitted (rays of) light and the earth shook; all divine and human beings gathered, joined their palms together, and listened to the Dharma. He preached in accordance with 482

482

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

capacities (of his audience), (his words) flowed forth like noble reverberations, his eloquence was inexhaustible. Those who heard his words did not experience them in vain, and all attained the path. (On the other hand,) Laozi lived during the Zhou dynasty; the ruler did not know him and the masses did not recognize him. He did not presume to put forth even one word of admonition (to the ruler) and was not able to save even one person (among the masses). He departed through the western barrier riding on a decrepit cart, speaking stealthily to Yinxi [before he disappeared forever]. Where is the public prominence in this [compared to the glory of the Buddha's preaching]? Again, (Zhuangzi worked) in the lacquer tree garden; he stained his brush to compose a document, adjusting the phrasing and adding corrections, but (the results) creaked with abstraction. He produced "inner" and "outer" sections (of the Zhuangzi) and sought (the approval of) those who have achieved insight, but who listened sympathetically and who attained the Way (because of him)? [Nobody.] How can these (activities and accomplishments) be considered on a par with (those of the Buddha)?

Such differences are immeasurable, such that they cannot be expounded, and (attempting to do so would be) tiresome. How can one take the deviant and oppose it to the correct?

Again, when the Buddha went forth, Indra was on his right, Brahmā was on his left, Vajrapāṇi (guardian spirits) led the way, and the four assemblies followed after him, flying through the sky. Laozi drove himself to the western barrier on a cart of thin planks (pulled by) a blue-black bull, and worked in a field. Zhuangzi was a servant in another's employ as a guard for the lacquer trees. How can these activities be considered on a par (with those of the Buddha)?

It was destiny that the Tathāgata would become a world ruler and (the people of) the four seas waited in reverent awe for him to attain the divine jewel (of royal accession). But he disregarded this glorious rank and left home to become the Buddha. (On the other hand,) when Laozi was east of the barrier he served parsimoniously as a minor official, and when he was west of the barrier, he tilled a field and cherished a few plots [of land instead of cherishing and serving people]. He was never able to abandon the bustle of his public and private activities. How can (the lives of) these be considered on a par (with that of the Buddha)!?

483 483

69a

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Blind people with no sight may believe what you are saying, but those who have (the insight of) wisdom will be suspicious and feel pity. Therefore, it should be known that your (interpretation of) "inexpressible" is a mistaken view of (the meaning of) "beyond words"; it embodies (the mistaken views based on) the three conventionalities, brings about suffering and the causes of suffering, and involves samsara as a matter of course. It is like embracing a torch—you will burn yourself and suffer injury. But if you destroy and deconstruct these mistaken views, (the result will be) as explained above. Again, non-Buddhists sometimes use the saying, "The way that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way" to define (the meaning of) "beyond words." They criticize (the teaching of) "neither arising nor perishing" in the Middle Treatise and say that (the meaning of) "beyond words" transcends this phrase of the tetralemma. Ordinarily, hearing this assertion may indeed seem to indicate a transcendence (of this phrase of the tetralemma), but in truth it is not so. What is meant by "nonarising" [in the Middle Treatise] is that thoughts of mistaken views do not arise. Since there is no arising, there is no perishing. Therefore, it says "neither arising nor perishing." However, thoughts of mistaken views (based on the idea) of "beyond words" give rise to all types of passions, mistaken views, doubt, and self-centeredness. How can such (ideas of) arising and perishing be used to destroy the nonarising and perishing of others? Such ignorant and frivolous argument should not be accepted. 4. Questions and answers. Question: Will this (explanation) not arouse mistaken views of nonarising and nonperishing? Answer: There are six possibilities. (1) "Beyond words" deconstructs "neither arising nor perishing." (2) "Neither arising nor perishing" deconstructs "beyond words." (3) "Beyond words" nurtures "neither arising nor-perishing." (4) "Neither arising nor perishing" nurtures "beyond words." (5) "Beyond words" is (indivisible from) "neither arising nor perishing." (6) "Neither arising nor perishing" is (indivisible from) "beyond words." No ordinary ignorant person can ascend the noble path. Even their arousing of ephemeral notions in all cases involves (the arousing of) mistaken views. Because they have these views, the passionate afflictions of suffering and the causes (of suffering) based on the three conventionalities [as explained above] follow accordingly. The king of the fish and the mother of shellfish are endowed with a multitude of followers; the bonds of karma 484

484

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

grow vigorously like weeds in an overwhelming (sea of) samsara. (The passionate afflictions and mistaken views) experienced in the life of one single person are without limit or boundary: how much more so for many people. It should be known that mistaken views and conceptions are greatly to be feared. Diligently practice cessation-and-contemplation to break and overcome them. If you arouse an individual mistaken view, use (the practice of) cessation-and-contemplation of the tetralemma to deconstruct their essence one by one. If you avoid the individual but experience the multiple (views) or avoid the multiple but experience the integrated or combined (views), or avoid the integrated or combined but experience (the views) "beyond words," they arise like weeds without end. Deal with them one by one through cessation-and-contemplation, and there are none that cannot finally be defeated. Be constantly quiescent [through cessation] and constantly illuminated [through the insight of wisdom], and control (the mistaken views) without resting. Sever all (views) you encounter as with a vajra sword and seize awakening as your destiny. If you are able to contemplate in this way but still do not arouse (a full awareness of) the truth, the mistaken views will be overcome and you will attain (the state of) the five aggregates of (conventional) means. If you attain the realization of emptiness, all mistaken views will be erased and eradicated. Therefore, (it is said that) "what is destroyed at (the stage of) the first fruit (of the stream-enterer) is like crossing waters of forty miles; its merit is exceedingly great." I am afraid that those who hear this will arouse doubt but, in brief, three (types of passionate) bonds are severed. The (insignificant) remainder that are not exhausted are like a drop of water. Although the deluded conceptions are not yet exhausted, there are no longer any remaining (explicit) mistaken views. I have spoken first concerning that of the more numerous, so that you can attain awakening concerning the universal destruction or deconstruction of (undesirable) dharmas.

Question: Realizing emptiness from conventionality deconstructs immeasurable mistaken views. What is (left to be) deconstructed by the two (remaining types of) contemplations?

Answer: The contemplation of realizing emptiness destroys mistaken views and conceptions, and as a whole can be said to involve the deconstruction of (substantial) "being." The next contemplation (of realizing 485 485

69b

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

conventionality from emptiness) involves the deconstruction of "nonbeing." That which is deconstructed by the contemplation of the Middle is both (being and nonbeing) so that it is not either extreme but is a correct manifestation of the Middle Path. Therefore, the Great Treatise says: The two mistaken views of being and nonbeing are extinguished without remainder; we bow our heads to the Dharma teaching venerated by the Buddha.

Thus, you should know that all mistaken views, both vertical and horizontal, are not yet (fully) deconstructed through the second contemplation (of realizing conventionality from emptiness), so do not mistake it for the true (and final) Dharma.

Question: You have identified (the Tripiṭaka Teaching of) samsara as "being" and identified (the Shared Teaching of) the two vehicles as "nonbeing." The vertical and horizontal ramifications of the mistaken views of being are immeasurable; is it the same for nonbeing?

Answer: Ordinary ignorant beings have deluded notions and arouse attachments to things they come in contact with; therefore, there are many (mistaken views related to) being. Those of the two vehicles have already severed (the explicit) views and conceptions, so in a horizontal sense they do not (have such immeasurable afflictions). However, they are enlightened (only) about emptiness. The Mahayana involves destroying or deconstructing that which is called "the mistaken view of emptiness."

2. Clarification of gain and loss. The second subject concerns gain and loss. Question: What is to be gained or lost from practicing the cessation-and-contemplation of mistaken views one by one in this way? Answer: This can be answered with four phrases: (1) old delusions are not removed and new delusions also arise, (2) old delusions are removed and new delusions also arise, (3) old delusions are not removed and new delusions do not arise, and (4) old delusions are removed and new delusions do not arise. First, this can be compared to taking medicine. (The first situation is like when) an old disease is not healed, and the medicine is causing yet another disease to arise. The second (situation is like when) the disease is healed but the medicine causes another disease (as a side effect). The third (situation is like when) the disease is not healed but the medicine does not cause any 486

486

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

harmful side effects. The fourth (situation is like when) the old disease is healed and the effects of the medicine also wear off.

The first two types are characteristics of gain and loss for non-Buddhist ways (of practice), and the latter two types are characteristics of gain and loss for Buddhist disciples.

What does this mean? (As for the first phrase, suppose that) basically you utilize cessation-and-contemplation to heal the delusions of samsara but you have thoughts of covetous desires, and not all (passionate afflictions) are put to rest. As a result of (the practice of) cessation-and-contemplation, further mistaken views are aroused, destroying the causes and results (of awakening) without exception. This is (the situation wherein) old delusions are not removed and new delusions also arise.

Second, (suppose that) when you cultivate cessation-and-contemplation, the crude passionate afflictions—such as covetous desire for food and clothing—are stilled and no longer arise. You put up with the cold and patiently bear suffering, and do not arouse hate when (your body is) cut with a sword or arouse passion when (your body is) smeared with perfume, and you maintain equanimity regarding gaining or losing material riches. However, you should be very wary of thoughts of attachment and mistaken views. They are like thirsty horses who guard their water; they are impudent and destructive and can make the causes and results (of awakening) come to naught. This is (the situation wherein) old delusions are gone but new delusions arise. These (first) two types (of situations) correspond to non-Buddhist (practices). Objects of passion arouse passion, and objects of anger arouse anger. If there are those who learn cessation-and-contemplation yet succumb to these things, they are the same as the non-Buddhists.

Third, the disciples of the Buddha cultivate cessation-and-contemplation and practice the way of (skillful) means. They are profoundly aware of the causes and conditions of mistaken views, passions, and ignorance. When an ephemeral thought arises, they know its three conventionalities, and one by one they deconstruct the nature and marks (of mistaken views and so forth) through cessation-and-contemplation. Even though (some vestiges of) greed and anger remain they are devoid of the attachments to mistaken views, and the sixty-two (kinds of mistaken views) have been overcome and 487 487

69c

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

do not arise. This is (the situation wherein) old delusions are not removed and new delusions do not arise. These are people who are on the path of (skillful) means.

Fourth, if you are able in this way to examine and reproach and be mindful one by one (of the mistaken views) through the four types of contemplation of the three conventionalities, to penetrate delusions and the emptiness of their nature and marks, become fully awake and arouse (insight into) the truth (of emptiness), and attain the insight of the principle (of reality), then you have not merely removed the old disease forever but new disease will not be aroused. This is to realize the path of insight into the truth, and to become a Noble One.

3. Clarification of levels. Third is to clarify the levels of the destruction or deconstruction of mistaken views.

If you cultivate these methods and are clearly aware of the Four Noble Truths, and skillfully use the wisdom of contemplation to overcome mistaken views, this is to rely on the method of the Tripiṭaka Teachings, that is, (to practice) the general and distinct states of mindfulness. This overcomes the four warped views; if the four warped views do not arise, you arouse the level of "heat" and accomplish the various preparatory levels of (skillful) means. Progressing to the destruction of mistaken views, you arouse (insight into) the truth (of emptiness) and become a noble (arhat). This is the level of the first fruit.

If you rely on the Shared Teachings, the level for overcoming mistaken views is the stage of "parched wisdom." If you attain (and drink) the water of the principle (of reality), the mind is moistened and you attain the stage of "(realizing your) potential." If you advance further and destroy the mistaken views, you realize the stages of the "eighth person" and of "insight." If you rely on the Distinct Teachings and overcome mistaken views, this is (the stage of) the iron wheel, the ten levels of faith. If you destroy (all) mistaken views, this is (the stage of) the copper wheel, the levels of the ten abodes.

If you rely on the Perfect Teaching and overcome (mistaken views), this is the level of the five preliminary grades. If you destroy (and sever all mistaken) views, this is the level of purifying the six senses. 488

488

Chapter VII. Contemplation Proper (Part One)

"Sever" and "overcome" are similar terms, but the contemplative wisdom [that they respectively imply] is very different. The contemplative wisdom of severing and overcoming (mistaken views and so forth) in the Tripiṭaka Teachings involve contemplating the conceivable truth (of emptiness) through the analytical method. The contemplative wisdom of severing and overcoming in the Shared Teachings involve contemplating the conceivable truth (of emptiness) through realizing the essential (emptiness of all things). The contemplative wisdom of severing and overcoming in the Distinct Teachings involve knowing the Middle Path, though gradually and progressively. The contemplative wisdom of severing and overcoming in the Perfect Teaching involves (realizing) the Middle in a single thought. Thus, you should not confuse their meanings on hearing (similar) terms [and thinking they are the same].

Question: If one can enter the level of the wise person by overcoming the mistaken views of conventionality, then even if one has not yet gotten rid of (all) old delusions, new delusions should no longer arise. When such people cultivate cessation-and-contemplation, do they arouse the objects of various mistaken views or not?

Answer: This situation involves arousing karmic influences from past lives. The mistaken views (that arise based on) karmic influences from past lives are "old delusions." This is like when people take medicine and the medicine attacks the latent disease, so that the latent disease is affected to heal itself in an instant. Therefore, this medicine does not cause any new disease.

Question: Why do you not directly clarify the levels of realizing emptiness by destroying and deconstructing the conventional for the Distinct and Perfect Teachings, instead of clarifying the levels for realizing emptiness for the Tripiṭaka and Shared Teachings?

Answer: In the above [section at the beginning of the fifth fascicle], I have clarified the cultivation of arousing and noncultivation of arousing the ten objective realms, their interpenetration, and so forth, wishing to point out the shallow and profound methods for those who practice, and to discuss the various levels (of attainment). Also, I directed the practitioner's awareness concerning these things, wishing to clarify the partial and complete levels. Again, the partial methods for realizing and entering emptiness are all means 489 489

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

Great Cessation-and-Contemplation, Volume I

and auxiliary practices of the path for the Distinct and Perfect (Teachings). Again, this is the meaning of the phrase [in the Lotus Sutra,] "There are many attendants who serve and guard." Again, there is no true reality separate and apart from (the conventional reality of conventional) means, so (realizing) the partial is (to realize) the complete. Therefore, it says [in the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines], "The wisdom and severance of those of the two vehicles is (equivalent to) the bodhisattva's forbearance (from realizing) the nonarising of phenomena."

To summarize, the meaning of cessation-and-contemplation regarding (penetrating) the essence of conventionality by realizing emptiness is as follows. The wheel of mistaken views is stilled, and, [as it says in the Vimalakīrti Sutra,] "once you experience (the stage of) nonretrogression, you are forever quiescent"; this is called "cessation." To penetrate (the realization that) views have no (substantial) nature, and that both nature and marks are empty, is called "contemplation." To perceive the principle of the real truth is called "nonarising." The principle itself does not arise, and the principle also does not perish. This "nonarising and nonperishing" is also called "the forbearance from realizing the nonarising (of phenomena)." Also, mistaken views and delusions do not arise; this is called the "nonarising of causes." There is no (substantial self who) experiences retribution in the three evil destinies; this is called the "nonarising of results." Causes and results neither arise, nor do they perish. This "nonarising and nonperishing" is also called "the forbearance of the nonarising (of phenomena)." This teaching of nonarising is common to (all forms of) cessation-and-contemplation. Again, it is through (the practice of) cessation-and-contemplation that one accomplishes the gate of nonarising. Thus ends (the exposition of) the universal destruction or deconstruction of mistaken views and delusions by realizing and entering emptiness through conventionality.

End of Fascicle 5.

490

490