A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy
Page 43
What other people mean by motion is that because things of the past [have gone away] and do not reach the present, therefore they are said to have moved and are not at rest (continue to exist). What I mean by rest is that, similarly, because things of the past do not reach the present, therefore they may be said to be at rest and have not moved. [Other people believe] things move but are not at rest because [past things] have not come down (continue to exist) to the present. [I believe] things are at rest and do not move because [past things] have not gone anywhere. Thus the situation [that past things have neither come to the present nor have gone anywhere] remains the same but our viewpoints are different. People who go against [the truth] will call [that situation] a barrier but those who follow [the truth] will call it a passage. If one has found the right way, what is there to obstruct him?
It is sad that people have been deluded in their views for such a long time. Truth is right before their eyes but they do not realize it. They already know that past things cannot come [to the present] but still maintain that present things can go (pass on). As past things cannot come [to the present], where do present things go? Why? If we look for past things in the past, we find that they are never nonexistent in the past, but if we search for past things in the present, we find that they are never existent there. That they are never existent in the present shows that they never come, and that they are never nonexistent in the past shows that they do not go away from it. If we turn our attention to investigate the present, we know that the present, too, does not go anywhere. This means that past things by their very nature exist in the past and have not gone there from the present, and present things by their nature exist in the present and have not come here from the past. This is why Confucius said, “Hui,12 [every day] I see something new. [Although you and I have been associated with each other for a long time], in a single moment you are no longer the same as before.”13 Thus it is clear that [past] things do not come and [present] things do not go. As there is not even a subtle sign of going or returning, what thing can there be that can move? This being the case, the raging storm that uproots mountains is always tranquil (at rest), rivers rushing to the sea do not flow, the fleeting forces moving in all directions and pushing about do not move, and the sun and moon revolving in their orbits do not turn round. What is there to wonder about any more?
Alas, the Sage has said, “Man’s life passes away quickly, more quickly than the stream current.”14 Therefore by realizing the impermanence of things the Buddha’s ordinary disciples (śrāvaka, those who attain to their own salvation by hearing the Buddha’s teaching) attain enlightenment, and the Buddhas-for-themselves (pratyekabuddha, who attain enlightenment by their own exertions),15 by realizing that causes [which make an entity a dependent being] can be removed, become identified with the real. If all motions (activities) of things are not changes, why should they seek after [the principle] of change in order to ascend the steps to enlightenment? [However], if we again investigate the saying of the Sage, we shall find its meaning to be subtle, hidden, and unfathomable. Things seem to move but are really at rest, and they seem to go away but really remain. Such things can only be understood by the spirit and cannot be discovered in ordinary facts. Therefore when the Sage said that things go, he did not mean that they really go; he merely wanted to prevent ordinary thoughts, and when he said that things remain in the same state,16 he did not mean that they really remain; he merely wanted to discard what ordinary people call the passing (impermanence) of things. He did not mean to say that by going is meant something being sent away and by remaining something being retained. Therefore the Ch’eng-chü ching (Scripture on Producing and Completing the Light) says, “The bodhisattva,17 living in the midst of people who believe in permanence, propagates the doctrine of impermanence.”18 And the Mo-ho-yen lun (Treatise of Great Wisdom) says, “Dharmas do not move. They neither go anywhere nor come to anywhere.”19 All these are intended to lead the common folks to reach enlightenment. The two different sayings aim at the same thing. Shall we say that because they differ in language they are contradictory in objectives? Although permanence is mentioned, it does not mean remaining in the same state, and although going is mentioned, it does not mean instability. Since dharmas are not mutable, they are always at rest even though they have gone, and because they do not remain, they are always gone even though they are at rest. As they are always gone although at rest, they do not mutate while being gone, and as they are always at rest while they are gone, they do not remain while at rest. When Chuang Tzu said that [it is impossible to] hide a mountain [in a lake for at midnight a strong man may come and carry it away on his back]20 and when Confucius stood by the stream [and said, “It passes on like this, never ceasing day or night”],21 both expressed the feeling that what is gone cannot be retained. Did they say that [things] can cast aside the present and pass on? Thus we see that the minds of the sages are different from the views of the common people. Why? They say that a man possesses the same body in youth and in old age and that the same substance persists over a hundred years. They only know that the years pass on but do not realize that the body follows. A young ascetic seeking Nirvāṇa left his family and when his hair had turned white, returned home. When his neighbors saw him and asked, “Is the man of the past still living?” he replied, “I look like the man of the past but I am not he.” The neighbors were all startled and rejected his words.22 [When Chuang Tzu] said that a strong man comes and carries it away on his back but an ignorant man does not know this,23 this is the meaning.
The Tathāgata (Buddha),24 in accordance with the obstruction in the common people’s views, speaks appropriate words to dispel their delusions. He exercises his true mind which transcends any duality and preaches various doctrines which need not be the same [but which vary according to circumstances].25 The words of the Sage are indeed conflicting but are never different [from the Middle Path]. Therefore when he talks about truth, he speaks in terms of [things being] immutable, but when he wants to lead the ordinary folk, he talks in terms of [things] moving on like a current. Although there are a thousand paths and a variety of tunes, they all converge at the same point.
But people who rely on the letter, when they hear of immutability, believe that things of the past cannot reach the present, and when they hear of things moving on like a current, believe that things of the present can reach the past. Since they have already made the distinction of past and present, how can things pass on between them? To say that [things] have gone does not necessarily mean that they have gone away. Both the past and the present exist permanently because they do not move. To say that [things] go does not necessarily mean that they really go, for the past cannot be reached from the present, since [the past] does not come [to the present]. As [things] do not come, there cannot be any shifting between past and present, and since they do not move, every thing, in accordance with its nature, remains for one period of time. This being the case, although the various books differ in language and the many schools differ in theory, if we find out where they converge, how can different expressions delude us?
What people call remaining, I call passing on, whereas what people call passing on, I call remaining. Although passing on and remaining are different, ultimately they are the same. This is why it is said in the scripture, “Straight words seem to be their opposite. Who will believe them?”26 There is reason for this saying.
What shall we say? People seek the past in the present. [Since it is not found in the present], they say that it does not remain. I seek the present in the past. [Since it is not in the past], I know that it does not go anywhere. If the present passes on to the past, then there should be the present in the past. If the past reaches to the present, then there should be the past in the present. Since there is no past in the present, we know that it does not come, and since there is no present in the past, we know that it does not go. As neither does the past reach to the present nor does the present reach to the past, everything, according
to its nature, remains for only one period of time. What thing is there to come and go?
Comment. This is the central issue of the problem, for motion and rest imply time. Throughout the essay, Seng-chao follows closely the logic of Nāgārjuna. According to him, time is unreal. For example, the present cannot be either in the past or not in the past. If it is in the past, it is obviously not present, and if it is not in the past, there would be nothing to cause its present existence. Since it is neither in the past nor not in the past, it is unreal. The same is true of the past and the future. This is argued in chapter nineteen of his treatise. By arguing that time is impossible, Seng-chao concludes that motion is illusory, since motion depends on time.
This being the case, although the four seasons are as fleeting as the wind and although the polar star revolves with lightning speed, if we understand the least bit [that things do not move], we will realize that, quick as they are, they do not move.
For the above reason, the merit27 of the Tathāgata continues for countless generations and exists permanently, and his truth remains firmer after having gone through a hundred aeons. The completion of a mountain lies in the first basket,28 and arriving at the destination of a long journey depends on the first step.29 The reason, surely, is that merit is immortal.
Since merit is immortal, it does not change though it is in the past. Since it does not change, it is immutable. And since it is immutable, it is clear that [merit remains] tranquil. Therefore the scripture says, “Although the three calamities [of fire, water, and wind] extend everywhere, the merit remains tranquil.”30 How true are these words! Why? The effect does not exist together with causes,31 because the effect is produced by the causes. Since the result is produced by the causes, the causes could not have been extinguished in the past. Since the result and the causes do not exist simultaneously, the causes do not come to the present. As they neither perish nor come to the present, the conclusion that they are immutable is clear. Why should we be deluded about [things] going or remaining any more, or be undecided as to whether [things] move or are at rest? Thus even if heaven and earth turn upside down, it does not mean that they are not at rest, and even if floods overflow heaven, it does not mean that they are in motion. If one’s spirit is harmonized with things as they are found, one can realize [the principle of the immutability of things] right where he is. (tsd, 45:151)
2. The Emptiness of the Unreal (ch. 2)
The Supreme Vacuity which neither comes into [nor goes out of] existence is probably the subtle principle in the reflection of the mysterious mirror of prajñā (wisdom) and the source of all existence. Unless one possesses the intelligence and special penetrating power of a sage, how can he harmonize his spirit with the realm of neither existence nor nonexistence? Therefore the perfect man penetrates the infinite with his wonderful mind and the finite cannot obstruct him. He applies to the utmost his ears to listen and his eyes to see, and sound and color cannot restrict him. Is this not because he leaves the vacuous self-nature of things as it is and therefore they cannot affect his spiritual intelligence? Therefore the sage exercises his true mind and is in accord with principle (li), and there is no obstruction which he cannot pass through. He views the transformation of all things with the clear understanding that [they are all of] one material force32 and therefore he is in accord with whatever he may encounter. Since there is no obstruction which he cannot pass through, therefore he can mix with the impure and achieve purity, and since he is in accord with whatever he encounters, he sees the unity of things as he comes in contact with them. Since this is the case, although the ten thousand forms (phenomenal things) seem to be different, they are not so in themselves. As they are not different in themselves, it follows that these [apparent] forms are not the real forms. As these forms are not the real forms, although they [appear to be] forms, they are not [real] forms at all.
Comment. This description of the mind of the sage is strikingly similar to those by Chuang Tzu and Kuo Hsiang.33 The desired state is practically identical with Chuang Tzu’s becoming one with the universe and Kuo Hsiang’s quiet harmony with all things. In all cases there is “no more deliberate mind of one’s own” (wuhsin) and consequently there is no obstruction between the self and the other but complete harmony without distinction.
Thus things and I sprang from the same root, and right and wrong come out of the same breath. [This principle] is deep, subtle, abstruse, and hidden, and it is well nigh impossible for ordinary people to understand completely.
This is the reason why in the brief discussion of today everybody has his own opinion when it comes to the profound, fundamental doctrine [of prajñā]. But if agreement is to be arrived at through adhering to differences of opinion, what common ground is there for agreement? Therefore different theories have come up in competition with one another, and by their very nature they cannot agree.
There is the School of Non-being of Mind.34 [It says that] “one should not have any deliberate mind toward the myriad things. The myriad things themselves, however, are not nonexistent.” This theory is right about the tranquillity of the spirit but is wrong in not realizing the emptiness of things.
Then there is the School of Matter35 As It Is. It explains that matter has no self-nature [but depends on external causes and conditions for its existence] and therefore, although it is [called] matter, it is not really matter [since it has only conditional existence and is therefore empty]. When we speak of matter, we should regard matter as it is [in its conditional existence] to be matter. Why must we wait till [a self-nature] has transformed it into matter [of absolute existence] before it can be called matter?36 This theory merely says that matter has no self-nature but does not understand that matter [including its conditional existence] is really not matter at all.
[Finally] there is the School of Original Non-being. This school is very fond of non-being.37 Regardless of what is said, it tends to say that it is non-being. Therefore [when the scriptures say that things] are not existent, it immediately interprets existence as non-being, and [when the scriptures say that things] are not nonexistent, it immediately interprets nonexistence as being non-being also. If we look into the original meaning of the sayings, we shall find that they merely mean to say that nonexistence means having no real (absolute) existence, and that no nonexistence means having no real (absolute) nonexistence. Why must having nonexistence be interpreted to mean that [this particular thing] has no existence, and not nonexistence be interpreted to mean that that [particular thing] has no nonexistence? This theory is nothing but a talk partial to non-being. How can it be said to be in accord with things or express their true nature?
As a thing is a thing because it becomes so in relation to other things, what is thus made may be called a thing. But since a thing caused by another thing is not really a thing, it is not really a thing although it is so called [inasmuch as it has no nature of its own].
Comment. Another borrowing from Chuang Tzu. The phraseology itself comes from him.38
Therefore the actuality of things cannot be equated with their names, and names in their true meanings cannot be matched by things. This being so, absolute truth remains tranquil outside of any elucidation through names. How can it be expressed by letters and words? But I cannot remain silent. Let me, then, employ words to offer some suggestions and try to discuss the matter as follows:
The Mo-ho-yen lun says, “The dharmas have neither the character of existence nor the character of nonexistence.”39 The Chung lun says, “The dharmas have neither existence nor nonexistence.”40 [These statements express] the absolute truth. As we go into the matter, when we say that there is neither existence nor nonexistence, does it mean to wipe out all the myriad things, blot out our seeing and hearing, and be in a state without sound, form, or substance before we can call it absolute truth? Truly, [absolute truth is] in accord with things as they are and therefore is opposed by none. The false is regarded as false and the true is regarded as true, and therefore their nature cannot
alter the absolute truth. As it cannot be altered by the nature of anything, although it seems to be nonexistent, it is really existent. And as it is not opposed by anything, although it seems to be existent, it is really nonexistent. As it is nonexistent although it seems to be existent, it is the same as being nonexistent, and as it is existent although it seems to be nonexistent, it is the same as not being nonexistent. Thus not being existent and not being nonexistent do not mean that there are no things, but that all things are not things in the real (absolute) sense. As all things are not things in the real sense, what is there in relation to which a thing can be so-called? Therefore the scripture says, “Matter is empty by virtue of its own nature; it is not empty because it has been destroyed.”41 This is to make clear that the sage, in his attitude toward the myriad things, leaves the vacuous nature of things as it is and does not need to disintegrate it before he can penetrate it. This is why it is said that the sickness of Vimalakīrti is unreal,42 and the Ch’ao-jih ching (Scripture [on Calmness] Outshining Sunshine) says that [the four elements of Earth, Water, Fire, and Wind] are all empty.43 Thus although the language in the Buddhist Canon varies, what combines and unites it is one.
The Fang-kuang ching says, “According to the absolute truth, no affair is accomplished and no thing is attained, but according to worldly (relative) truth, affairs are accomplished and things are attained.”44 Now, accomplishment is a false name [indicating the relative aspect of] accomplishment, and non-accomplishment is the real name [indicating the absolute aspect of] accomplishment. Since it is the true name, although it is true, accomplishment does not exist. And since it is a false name, although it is false, accomplishment is not nonexistent. Therefore what is said to be true (absolute) is not necessarily existent, and what is said to be false (relative) is not necessarily nonexistent. The two terms are not the same but the principles are not different. Therefore the scripture says, “Are absolute truth and worldly truth different? The answer is, ‘No’.”45 This scripture directly elucidates the absolute truth to make clear that [things] are not existent, and elucidates worldly truth to make clear that [things] are not nonexistent. Does it mean to say that because there are the two levels of absolute and worldly truth, there are two different kinds of things?