Is the Three Treatises' Teaching Truly Final?

Revealing the right teaching, second. Question: Nāgārjuna's own compositions are extremely numerous in kind — the three treatises, fixed as they seem to be on emptiness alone, appear not to be his ultimate teaching. Answer: Sengrui, who stood as the foremost figure in Kumārajīva's translation bureau, wrote in his preface to this very treatise: "Once a structure of a hundred great beams has been raised, one comes to despise the crookedness of a thatched hut; once one has beheld the vast breadth of this treatise, one comes to recognize how doubly contemptible a one-sided awakening actually is." Hence those who fixed exclusively on the Hīnayāna properly return, in the end, to this treatise.

And as already noted earlier: throughout India's sixteen great kingdoms, spanning eight thousand li on every side, wherever there existed a connection ripe for transformation, all alike entrusted their sincere faith to Nāgārjuna as a buddha without marks; and among those who dared to count themselves among his students, there was not one who failed to savor this treatise as the very collar and throat of his own learning. Were this treatise merely a one-sided emptiness, how could it possibly have been held in such regard by every one of these kingdoms? Moreover, Kumārajīva himself originally held fast to the Hīnayāna, and it was on account of this very treatise that he turned his course toward correct contemplation; and all the many masters who came after him relied on this same text to awaken from their own confusion. Examining the matter in this detail, this is, in fact, the ultimate teaching, without remainder.

Question: If the three treatises rebuke both inside and outside, and reject both great and small alike, then on what does this treatise's own guiding doctrine actually rely? Answer: If the mind still harbors inside and outside, and the feelings still lodge in great and small, then one has already fallen into one-sided error and lost the correct principle. Having lost the correct principle, correct contemplation does not arise. If correct contemplation does not arise, then annihilationism and eternalism are not extinguished. If annihilationism and eternalism are not extinguished, then the wheel of suffering turns on forever. It is only when inside and outside are both left in stillness, and great and small are both quiesced together, that this is properly named the correct principle. Awakening to this correct principle, one gives rise to correct contemplation; once correct contemplation arises, conceptual proliferation is thereby extinguished; once conceptual proliferation is extinguished, the wheel of suffering is thereby broken. This is the underlying intent of the three treatises' great doctrine — it is, in fact, the very culmination toward which the whole body of teachings converges, and the numinous repository unifying the entire assembly of sages. How could those who savor the way fail to make their home in, and rely upon, this very direction?

Question: If inside and outside are both done away with, and great and small are both rejected, this surely amounts to the view of annihilation — how, then, can it be called the correct doctrine? Answer: Precisely because inside and outside are both stilled together, annihilationism and eternalism are thereby quiesced as well. With both extremes now abandoned, how could this fail to be the correct doctrine?

Objection: To have annihilation and to have eternalism is precisely what is called "existence"; to be without annihilation and without eternalism is thereby designated "non-existence." But since this position is itself simply non-existence, how could it possibly escape annihilationism after all? Answer: Precisely because annihilationism and eternalism are quiesced together, existence and non-existence, and every such pair, are thereby left behind as well. One ought not, on top of this, turn around and claim that the position has simply been dyed over into non-existence instead.

Objection: Though this answer offers a way through, it still does not escape the difficulty. To have both "there is existence" and "there is non-existence" is what is called existence; to have neither "there is existence" nor "there is non-existence" — this, from the outset, is simply the greater non-existence. But since the position has thereby fallen into non-existence, how does it escape annihilationism after all? Answer: The teaching of non-existence was, from the start, set up specifically to counter the sickness of existence. Once the sickness of existence has dissolved, the medicine of emptiness is likewise set aside — from which it may be known that the sagely path has never, at any point, actually been either existence or non-existence. What, then, is there left to be caught on?

Objection: "It is existence" and "it is non-existence" are what is called the two assertions; "it is not existence" and "it is not non-existence" are what is called the double negation. But since the position has thereby fallen into a dispute of assertion against negation, it is simply the same, after all, as the ancient quarrel between the Confucians and the Mohists. Answer: It is precisely because of the two assertions that the double negation was set forth in the first place. Once the two assertions have already vanished, the double negation is likewise set to rest. Hence it is known that the position is neither the assertion, nor, for that matter, the negation of the assertion either.

Objection: "Neither the assertion nor its negation" still falls into a pair of negations — how, then, does the position escape negation after all? Answer: The two assertions are born from a tiger seen in a dream; the double negation, in turn, is nothing but a flower seen in the empty sky. From this it is known that there was, from the very beginning, nothing that was ever truly asserted — and so now, likewise, there is nothing that is truly negated either.

Objection: If there is neither assertion nor negation, then there is likewise neither the false nor the true — why, then, does this treatise's whole structure bear the title "refuting the false and revealing the true"? Answer: To have a negation and to have an assertion — this precisely is the false. To be without assertion and without negation — this precisely is what is named the true. This is exactly why the work's chapters are titled to discriminate refuting the false and revealing the true.

Objection: Given that there is a false to be refuted and a true to be revealed, the mind must then be taking hold of one and casting aside the other — how, then, can it be said to rest on nothing at all? Answer: It is only in order to bring the false to rest that the name "the true" is provisionally applied at all. Once the false has been brought to rest, the true is likewise not retained as a fixed resting place — and so the mind ends up attached to nothing whatsoever.

Objection: If the false and the true are both stilled together, is this not simply the view of emptiness? Answer: The Treatise on Correct Contemplation says: "The great sage taught the dharma of emptiness precisely in order to leave every view behind. If one then goes on to view emptiness itself as existing, this is a case even the buddhas cannot transform." It is like water, which is able to extinguish fire — but if the water itself now gives rise to fire in turn, what could possibly be used to extinguish it? Annihilationism and eternalism are the fire; emptiness is what is able to extinguish it. But if one then goes on to become attached to emptiness itself, there remains, at that point, no medicine left that could extinguish anything at all.

Objection: Given that attachment to emptiness is itself a sickness, why not simply administer the medicine of existence instead, and call the transformation complete that way? Answer: If one transforms a person by means of existence, he simply becomes stuck fast in existence once again; and pursued to its end, once even speech itself is abandoned, he ends up attached to annihilation instead. People of this kind — by what means could they ever actually be transformed? Question: What fault, exactly, is there in the mind's having something it is attached to? Answer: Wherever there is something attached to, there is thereby something binding — and one cannot then gain liberation from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, and suffering. Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "By means of countless skillful expedients, I guide and lead sentient beings, so that they may leave every attachment behind."

The Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: "Unattached to the world, like the lotus flower, ever skillfully entering the practice of empty stillness, penetrating the marks of all dharmas without any obstruction — I bow my head to one who, like empty space, rests upon nothing at all." It is precisely because the buddhas of the three times see that the beings of the six destinies have minds with something attached to that they appear in the world and expound sūtras; it is precisely because the enlightened beings of the four kinds of reliance see that students of both great and small vehicles have minds with something relied upon that they appear in the world and compose treatises. Hence having something relied upon and having something attained is the very root of birth-and-death, while abiding nowhere and being attached to nothing is the great central doctrine shared by sūtra and treatise alike.

Objection: If inside and outside are both stilled together, why do the Buddhist sūtras still teach the two vehicles of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna at all? Answer: The Lotus Sūtra says: "This Dharma cannot be shown; the marks of speech are themselves quiescent." The Tathāgata, within what has no name and no mark, forcibly speaks of names and marks — and this is why there come to be the two teaching-gates of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, so that sentient beings might, by means of these very names and marks, awaken to what has no name or mark at all. But those sealed within their own fixed teaching, on hearing the distinction of great and small taught, only give rise to further defiled attachment on that very account — and this is precisely why treatises are composed, to refute this attached state of mind, and to bring beings back to a full awakening to what was, from the very beginning, already quiescent. This is why the enlightened beings of the four kinds of reliance appear in the world, acting exactly as a buddha would.

Question: This treatise is named for correct contemplation — how many kinds of "correct" are there? Answer: Heaven has no two suns; a land has no two kings. The teaching has many gates, but the underlying principle admits of only a single correctness — this is exactly why the four sects have been rebuked above. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Mañjuśrī, the Dharma is ever thus: the Dharma-king has only the one Dharma. Every fearless one travels the one single path that leads out of birth-and-death." It is only in order to lead sentient beings out that, within a Dharma without name or mark, one forcibly speaks of names and marks at all — so that those who take up the teaching may, by means of this very speech, come to awakening. On this basis, two kinds of correctness are opened up: first, essential correctness; second, functional correctness.

Being neither the ultimate nor the conventional is what is named essential correctness; being the ultimate paired together with the conventional is what is designated functional correctness. The reason is this: the real character of all dharmas leaves speech behind and cuts off deliberation, and has never, at any point, actually been either the ultimate or the conventional — this is why it is called the essence. Cutting off every one-sided deviation is what is designated correctness — hence it is called essential correctness. As for what is called functional correctness: since the essence cuts off names and words, beings would have no means at all to awaken to it. So although it is, in truth, neither existence nor non-existence, one forcibly speaks of it as the ultimate and the conventional — hence this is called the function. And since this ultimate paired with this conventional likewise involves no one-sided deviation, it too is designated correctness — hence it is called functional correctness.

Question: Since you speak of the ultimate and the conventional, this is simply the two extremes all over again — how, then, can this be named correct? Answer: Take, for instance, provisional existence arising through causes and conditions, which is designated the conventional. Yet this provisional existence cannot be said to definitely exist, and it likewise cannot be said to definitely not exist. This provisional existence, being far removed from both extremes, is thereby named correct. And just as conventional existence is like this, so too is ultimate non-existence: provisional non-existence cannot be said to definitely not exist, and it cannot be said to definitely exist either. Being far removed from both extremes, it too is thereby designated correct.

Question: Why distinguish essential correctness and functional correctness at all? Answer: In the semblance and final ages, those of dull faculty mostly fall into one-sided error, and so the enlightened beings of the four kinds of reliance appear in the world to set the Buddha's teaching right again — this is why functional correctness is made clear. And once one has recognized the correct teaching, one thereupon awakens to the correct principle, at which point there is essential correctness as well. Correctness itself, however, is of three grades. First, that which is designated correct with reference to a specific biased sickness — this is named correctness-against-bias. Second, that which is designated correct by exhausting bias entirely and leaving it thoroughly purified — this is called correctness-exhausting-bias. Third, once the biased sickness has already departed, correctness itself is likewise not retained as a fixed thing — neither biased nor correct, and not knowing what else to call it, one forcibly praises it under the name correct all the same — this is called correctness-beyond-all-comparison.

As it stands with correctness, so too with contemplation and treatise. Contemplation arising from essential correctness is named essential contemplation; contemplation arising by relying on the function of the two truths is named functional contemplation — hence contemplation, too, comprises both. Contemplation is discriminated within the mind; when, for the sake of sentient beings, one speaks of the essence exactly as it truly is, this is named an essential treatise; when one speaks instead of the function, this is named a functional treatise — hence treatise, too, comprises both. And just as correctness itself has its three grades of against-bias, exhausting-bias, and beyond-all-comparison, so too do contemplation and treatise — the pattern may be understood by analogy with what has come before.