Two Kinds of World-Dependence
The Buddha names two ways the world is said to "depend" on something: dependence on existence, which secretly denies any real cause, and dependence on non-existence, which arises only once one has already grasped at greed, hatred, and delusion as real things to be denied. Mahāmati, testing his own understanding, proposes that anyone who first grasps at these three poisons and later denies them is the true "destroyer" of the Dharma — and the Buddha agrees, then extends the same charge, startlingly, to include even the Buddha and the two lesser vehicles read a certain way. The page closes with the two kinds of mastery a bodhisattva needs to guide anyone at all: mastery of realization itself, and mastery of how to teach it.
Two Kinds of World-Dependence
爾時，大慧菩薩復請世尊：「唯願為說一切法有無有相，令我及餘菩薩摩訶薩離有無有相，疾得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」
佛告大慧：「諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。」
大慧白佛言：「善哉，世尊！唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「此世間依有二種，謂：依有、無。及墮性非性欲見，不離離相。大慧！云何世間依有？謂：有世間因緣生，非不有。從有生，非無有生。大慧！彼如是說者，是說世間無因。大慧！云何世間依無？謂：受貪恚癡性已，然後妄想計著貪恚癡性非性。大慧！若不取有性者，性相寂靜。故謂諸如來聲聞緣覺，不取貪恚癡性，為有為無。大慧！此中何等為壞者？」
Then Mahāmati Bodhisattva again made a request of the World-Honored One: "I beg you to teach the marks of every dharma's existence and non-existence, so that I and the other bodhisattva-mahāsattvas may leave behind the marks of existence and non-existence, and swiftly attain unsurpassed, complete enlightenment."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Listen well! Listen well! Consider this carefully — I shall now explain it to you."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "Excellent, World-Honored One! I gladly receive your teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "This dependence the world rests upon is of two kinds: dependence on existence, and dependence on non-existence — and both fall into the desire to see [things fixed as] a nature or its absence, never truly apart from that very apartness [they claim to have reached]. Mahāmati, what is the world's dependence on existence? It is that the world is held to arise through cause and condition — not to be non-existent at all; arising from existence, not arising from non-existence. Mahāmati, one who speaks in this way is, in truth, teaching that the world arises without any cause at all. Mahāmati, what is the world's dependence on non-existence? It is that, having first grasped at the [supposed] nature of greed, hatred, and delusion, one then, through false thought, becomes attached to the absence of that very nature of greed, hatred, and delusion. Mahāmati, if one never grasps at [them as having] any nature to begin with, then their very nature and mark are, from the outset, still. It is for this reason that every tathāgata, every śrāvaka, and every pratyekabuddha does not grasp at the nature of greed, hatred, and delusion, whether as existing or as not existing. Mahāmati, within all this, who exactly counts as a destroyer [of the Dharma]?"
The commentators are precise that "dependence on existence" is not simply belief that things exist, but a specific, self-undermining move: "依有下是釋有相，謂實有世間因緣而生諸法，非不實有，實從有生。言非無有生者，謂能生因緣是有，此計無為有，故復告云：彼如是說者是外道無因論也" — "'dependence on existence' explains the mark of existence: that the world's dharmas genuinely arise through cause and condition, not that they lack real existence — genuinely arising from what exists. 'Not arising from non-existence' means that the very cause and condition capable of generating something is itself held to exist — [yet] this treats [that generating capacity itself] as though it, too, were simply a thing that exists, without asking what generates it in turn — hence the further judgment: one who speaks this way is, in fact, teaching the outsiders' own doctrine of arising without a cause." Insisting that the world's cause is simply "existent," without further qualification, secretly begs the very question of causation it claims to answer — the generating cause itself is smuggled in as an unexplained given, which the commentators read as functionally identical to positing no cause at all.
On "dependence on non-existence," the commentators trace the same trap from the opposite direction: "依無下是釋無相，謂先受三毒性已，而後妄計其性非性...若不妄受三毒為有性者，則無所取" — "'dependence on non-existence' explains the mark of non-existence: it is that one first takes on the [supposed] nature of the three poisons, and only afterward falsely conceives of that very nature as absent... but if one never falsely takes the three poisons to have a nature in the first place, there is nothing left to deny at all." Denying that greed, hatred, and delusion exist is not, on this reading, a superior insight to affirming that they do — both moves accept the same false premise (that these are fixed things with a nature, capable of being affirmed or denied) before disagreeing only about which answer to give.
Who Is a True Destroyer of the Dharma?
大慧白佛言：「世尊！若彼取貪恚癡性，後不復取。」
佛告大慧：「善哉，善哉！汝如是解。大慧！非但貪恚癡性非性為壞者，於聲聞、緣覺及佛亦是壞者。所以者何？謂內外不可得故，煩惱性異不異故。大慧！貪恚癡若內若外不可得，貪恚癡性無身故、無取故，非佛、聲聞、緣覺是壞者。佛、聲聞、緣覺自性解脫故，縛與縛因非性故。大慧！若有縛者，應有縛是縛因故。大慧！如是說壞者，是名無所有相。大慧！因是故，我說寧取人見如須彌山，不起無所有增上慢空見。大慧！無所有增上慢者，是名為壞。墮自共相見悕望，不知自心現量。見外性無常，剎那展轉壞。陰界入相續流注變滅，離文字相妄想。是名壞者。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「有無是二邊， 乃至心境界，
淨除彼境界， 平等心寂滅。
無取境界性， 滅非無所有，
有事悉如如， 如賢聖境界。
無種而有生， 生已而復滅，
因緣有非有， 不住我教法。
非外道非佛， 非我亦非餘，
因緣所集起， 云何而得無？
誰集因緣有， 而復說言無，
邪見論生法， 妄想計有無。
若知無所生， 亦復無所滅，
觀此悉空寂， 有無二俱離。」
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, [it is] one who first grasps at the nature of greed, hatred, and delusion, and afterward no longer grasps at it [as either existing or not, that would count as a destroyer]."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Excellent, excellent! You have understood correctly. Mahāmati, it is not only [one who first grasps and then denies] the nature of greed, hatred, and delusion who is a destroyer — the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and even the Buddha are, [read this same way,] also destroyers. Why is this? Because neither internally nor externally can [these three poisons] ultimately be apprehended at all, and because the nature of affliction is neither different nor not different [from what apprehends it]. Mahāmati, since greed, hatred, and delusion cannot be apprehended within or without, since the nature of greed, hatred, and delusion has no body of its own, and since there is nothing there to grasp at in the first place — it is not the Buddha, the śrāvaka, or the pratyekabuddha who are destroyers. The Buddha, the śrāvaka, and the pratyekabuddha are liberated by their own very nature, since bondage, and the cause of bondage, both alike have no fixed nature at all. Mahāmati, if there really were something bound, there would have to be a bondage, and a cause for that bondage, [both truly existing] — Mahāmati, to speak of a 'destroyer' in that sense is what is called the mark of having nothing at all. Mahāmati, it is for this reason that I say: better to hold the view of a fixed self as vast as Mount Sumeru than to give rise to the arrogant, empty view that there is nothing at all. Mahāmati, one with that arrogant, empty view of nothingness is the true destroyer — falling into the hopeful grasping at own mark and shared mark, not knowing this to be the very measure of his own mind's manifestation; seeing what is external as impermanent, perishing moment by moment; [seeing] the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields as a continuous flow that changes and vanishes; and [yet still] apart from the false thought bound up with the mark of the written word [in only a superficial sense] — this is what is called a true destroyer."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "Existence and non-existence are the two extremes, down to the very domain of mind itself;
once that domain is purified entirely, the mind of equality is utterly stilled.
Grasping at no fixed nature of any domain at all — this ceasing is not the same as there being nothing whatsoever;
every matter is, in truth, just as it really is — this is the very domain of the worthy and the noble.
Without any seed, and yet something arises; having arisen, it then ceases again;
[to say] cause and condition both exist and do not exist — this does not abide within my own teaching.
Neither the outsiders, nor the Buddha, neither myself, nor anyone else [truly makes anything arise] —
it is cause and condition, gathering together, that give rise to it — how, then, could one say there is nothing there at all?
Who is it that gathers cause and condition into existence, and yet turns around to call it nothing at all?
This is the theorizing of a wrong view about arising and ceasing — false thought conceiving of existence and non-existence.
If one knows that nothing is truly born, and, likewise, that nothing truly ceases,
and observes all of this as utterly empty and still, then existence and non-existence are both alike left behind."
The commentators are careful that extending the charge of "destroyer" even to the Buddha and the two vehicles is a deliberately provocative move to be read symmetrically, not a genuine accusation: "蓋彼謂佛與二乘亦本取三毒為有，後除三毒為無，得成聖果，故云亦是壞者" — "the point is that [on the same logic just proposed,] one could equally say the Buddha and the two vehicles also first took the three poisons to exist, and only later removed them into non-existence, thereby attaining noble fruition — hence they too, [judged by that same flawed logic,] would be 'destroyers.'" The whole exchange is a reductio: if "first grasp, then deny" is what makes someone a destroyer, then this description applies just as well to the path everyone, Buddha included, is said to walk — which shows the definition itself must be wrong, since the Buddha is plainly not a destroyer of anything.
On why the Buddha says he would rather someone hold a self-view "as vast as Mount Sumeru" than fall into nihilistic arrogance, the commentators explain the asymmetry in what each error costs: "人見之惡有限，增上慢空見則無法不棄，是名為壞" — "the fault in a view of self is, in the end, limited — but the arrogant view of emptiness discards every dharma without exception, and it is this that is truly called destruction." A fixed self-view is a specific, containable error about one particular thing; treating emptiness as license to declare that literally nothing exists at all — including cause, effect, karma, and the path itself — destroys the entire framework within which any correction could even be offered, which is precisely why the commentators, following the sūtra, treat it as the more dangerous mistake by far.
Two Kinds of Mastery
爾時，大慧菩薩復白佛言：「世尊！唯願為我及諸菩薩說宗通相。若善分別宗通相者，我及諸菩薩通達是相，通是相已，速成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，不隨覺想及眾魔外道。」
佛告大慧：「諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。」
大慧白佛言：「唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「一切聲聞、緣覺、菩薩，有二種通相，謂：宗通及說通。大慧！宗通者，謂：緣自得勝進相，遠離言說文字妄想，趣無漏界自覺地自相，遠離一切虛妄覺想，降伏一切外道眾魔，緣自覺趣光明暉發。是名宗通相。云何說通相？謂：說九部種種教法，離異不異、有無等相，以巧方便，隨順眾生如應說法，令得度脫。是名說通相。大慧！汝及餘菩薩，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「宗及說通相， 緣自與教法，
若見善分別， 不隨諸覺想。
非有真實性， 如愚夫妄想，
云何起欲想， 非性為解脫？
觀察諸有為， 生滅等相續，
增長於二見， 顛倒無所知。
一是為真諦， 無罪為涅槃，
觀察世妄想， 如幻夢芭蕉。
雖有貪恚癡， 而實無有人，
從愛生諸陰， 有皆如幻夢。」
Then Mahāmati Bodhisattva again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I beg you to teach me and the other bodhisattvas the mark of the mastery of realization. Should you rightly discriminate the mark of the mastery of realization, I and the other bodhisattvas, penetrating this mark, will, once we have penetrated it, swiftly accomplish unsurpassed, complete enlightenment, without ever following after mere conceptual awareness or falling under the sway of any māra or outsider."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Listen well! Listen well! Consider this carefully — I shall now explain it to you."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "I gladly receive your teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Every śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva has two kinds of mastery: the mastery of realization, and the mastery of teaching. Mahāmati, the mastery of realization is this: the mark of ever-further advancement attained through self-realization, far removed from speech, written words, and false thought, reaching the very own mark of the ground of self-realization within the undefiled realm, far removed from every kind of false, illusory awareness, subduing every outsider and every māra, the very radiance of self-realization shining forth of itself — this is called the mastery of realization. What is the mastery of teaching? It is expounding the nine divisions of the teaching in their manifold forms, apart from the marks of identity and difference, existence and non-existence, and the rest, and, through skillful means, according with sentient beings, teaching the Dharma exactly as suited to each, so that they may be brought to liberation — this is called the mastery of teaching. Mahāmati, you and the other bodhisattvas should diligently train in both."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "The mastery of realization, and the mastery of teaching — self-realization, and the teaching that conveys it —
seeing them and rightly discriminating them, one no longer follows after mere conceptual awareness.
Apart from any truly fixed nature, [to insist there is one] is just the ignorant person's own false thought;
how, then, could giving rise to the very wish that there be no [fixed] nature at all be called liberation?
Observing every conditioned thing, arising and ceasing in unbroken succession,
[the ignorant only] increase the two [extreme] views, inverted and knowing nothing at all.
The single truth is ultimate truth itself; what is free of fault is nirvāṇa —
observe the world's own false thought to be just like an illusion, a dream, a plantain's hollow trunk.
Though greed, hatred, and delusion exist, there is, in truth, no person there at all who has them;
from craving the aggregates themselves arise — every one of them is, alike, just like a dream."
The commentators explain why mastery of realization and mastery of teaching must be paired, neither one sufficient without the other: "宗者道之本，說者教之跡...宗通而說不通，理雖精而不顯；說通而宗不通，言雖辯而非要" — "realization is the very root of the path; teaching is its outward trace... one who has mastered realization but not teaching may grasp the principle precisely, yet be unable to make it manifest to anyone else; one who has mastered teaching but not realization may speak eloquently, yet miss what actually matters." A bodhisattva silent in his own perfect realization cannot guide a single other being toward it; a bodhisattva skilled only in eloquent speech, without the realization his words are meant to convey, has nothing genuine left to actually transmit — which is exactly why the sūtra insists, as the commentators put it, that "二者實相須為用，不可偏廢也" — "the two genuinely depend on each other in their function, and neither one may be neglected in favor of the other."
On why the mastery of teaching is specifically tied to "the nine divisions" rather than the more familiar twelvefold division of the canon found elsewhere, the commentators supply the precedent directly: "小乘九部，無方廣、無無問自說、無授記之三部...大乘九部，無因緣、譬喻、論議之三部" — "the śrāvaka vehicle's nine divisions lack the three divisions of expansive teachings, of teachings given without being asked, and of predictions [of future buddhahood]; the Mahāyāna's own nine divisions instead lack the three divisions of causal narrative, of parables, and of doctrinal debate." Which three divisions are considered "missing" depends entirely on which vehicle's own canon is being counted from — the sūtra's use of "nine" here signals, on the commentators' reading, precisely the graduated, audience-specific character mastery of teaching requires: the same twelvefold total, differently divided, depending on who is actually listening.
Part 25 Complete
This closes Part 25: two kinds of world-dependence shown to share the same underlying flaw of treating existence or non-existence as a fixed thing, the reductio revealing that nihilistic emptiness — not any fixed self-view — is the true "destroyer" of the Dharma, and the two kinds of mastery, of realization and of teaching, that together let a bodhisattva both attain the path and actually guide someone else along it. Part 26 turns to a long and searching teaching on unreal false thought — how it arises, what it fastens onto, and a sweeping verse defining "the measure of mind" through more than a dozen successive images.
Continue to Part 26 — Unreal False Thought →