物不遷正量證

Surely, even though one may praise it, this is still not enough to set forth its lofty and beautiful heights; and even though one may refute it, this only further opens up its wondrous and subtle import. The treatise Things Do Not Shift by Master Sengzhao[1] is profound in meaning and ornate in expression, terse in its prose yet all-encompassing in its sense; not only is it a compass for students, it is also the very essence of the ocean-treasury[2]. For several thousand years no one has been able to grasp the master's manner of discernment, and so they have taken the entire essential import of "the emptiness of nature does not shift" to be the fixed view of "determinate, deathlike permanence."

Chan Master Nguyệt Xuyên Trừng (Yuechuan Cheng), grieving that this finely profound meaning had become buried, and sorrowing for the deluded and foolish who are hard to instruct, knowing that even were he to explain it would be of no use to those who are weary and despondent, therefore chose the approach of refutation in order to bring forth and proclaim the beauty and subtle wonder of this treatise. This is what is called "right words that appear as their opposite," using a wedge to remove a wedge. Even so, has he not indeed spoken of this very thing? Let me try to discuss it!

Master Trừng's collected refutational arguments, though no fewer than several myriad words, when one examines their essential point, amount only to the use of the "faulty reason" (nhân phi). Now I shall discuss only this essential point, while the other matters I shall pass over. The "faulty reason" is nothing other than this: the sūtras (Tu-đa-la) hold that all dharmas are "empty of nature," and so they are called "Not Shifting"; whereas Master Sengzhao holds that all things possess an "abiding nature," and so they are called "Not Shifting." Going by the intent of Master Trừng's rebuttal, "the emptiness of nature and the abiding of nature" are like water and fire.

But in truth, "the emptiness of nature and the abiding of nature" differ only in name, while in essence they are not different. The reason it is called "emptiness of nature" is that the self-nature of form is empty—not that one annihilates form in order to make it empty—and therefore it is called "emptiness of nature." As the Prajñā sūtra states: "Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form." The reason it is called "abiding of nature" is that all dharmas abide forever in the "true emptiness that is the real nature," and therefore it is called "abiding of nature." As the Lotus Sūtra states:

This Dharma abides in the Dharma-station,

The character of the world abides forever.

If one is able to see in this way, then this is precisely the reason whereby Master Trừng demolishes, and precisely the wondrous import whereby Master Sengzhao establishes—how could there be any room here for sameness or difference? Yet because Master Trừng pretended not to know, he therefore explained "the abiding of nature" wrongly, as follows: things of the past abide in the past and do not shift into the present; while things of the present abide in the present and do not return to the past. And so on—the new and the old, the young and the aged, the formed and the decayed, cause and effect, and so forth, of things all abide in their own positions, and therefore it is called "the abiding of nature." Alas! What an injustice!

If the meaning of "the abiding of nature" were truly like this, then, setting aside Master Sengzhao's meaning of "not shifting," would the cardinal principle of the Lotus Sūtra—"This Dharma abides in the Dharma-station; the true character abides forever"—be the same as the heretics' fixed view of "deathlike permanence" and the "six categories with determinate distinctions" of the Vaiśeṣika (Thắng Luận) school? If so, then this is surely the doctrine of "things do not shift" of recent masters, and not the doctrine of "things do not shift" of Master Sengzhao! Therefore Master Trừng said: "I do not refute Master Zhao; the one who refutes Master Zhao is none other than Master Zhao himself!"—and indeed there is a reason for this!

However, the line "Things of the past abide in the past and do not shift into the present; things of the present abide in the present and do not return to the past, and so forth" is the very text within Master Sengzhao's own treatise. Here the term "Not Shifting" is used to explain the principle of "the abiding of nature." How can one split it apart in order to rebut it? For these words have never in fact differed, and the reason for speaking thus is the fear that they have never been the same.

Master Sengzhao says: "Things of the past of themselves reside in the past, and are not brought from the present into the past. Things of the present of themselves reside in the present, and are not shifted from the past into the present." All of this together clarifies the wondrous import of "emptiness." But Master Trừng mistakenly gave rise to the one-sided attachment of "determinate difference, deathlike permanence."

And then how strange is it to say that "the abiding of nature" and "the emptiness of nature" are not like water and fire! How strange to say that "the abiding of nature" does not contradict "the emptiness of nature"! To say "things of the past of themselves reside in the past" is to speak of the manifest existing character; to say "and are not brought back from the present into the past" is to speak of the essence that is silent and still.

The essence that is silent and still is "the abiding of nature"; the character that exists is wondrous function. Because it is wondrous, therefore though it exists it is ever silent and still. Because nature is empty, therefore though silent and still it ever illumines.

This is all to gather emptiness and existence into a single converging import, and to draw essence and function together into a single phrase. To explain "the abiding of nature" with this meaning is to make "the abiding of nature" the true cause of "not shifting." So how could it be the same as what Master Trừng says—that "the abiding of nature is determinate permanence, and each thing abiding in each position is determinate difference"?

Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra calls the transformation-body itself the true; the Lotus Sūtra holds that all characters are wondrous. The treatise Things Do Not Shift also states: "To say 'going' is not necessarily going; to say 'abiding' is not necessarily abiding." "One can only apprehend it with the mind, and not seek for it through phenomena"—this Master Sengzhao has already stated clearly.

Moreover, how can one cling to the traces of things in order to interrogate the principle that "the emptiness of nature does not shift"?

Master Trừng says: "Sengzhao sought for things of the past. He said: 'In the past they were never absent; in the present they were never present.' If so, then these things existed in the past and are absent in the present." How utterly unjust, Master Trừng! Could this possibly be the intent of Master Sengzhao?

Master Sengzhao only said "in the past they were never absent," but did not say they were definitely present; he only said "in the present they were never present," but did not say they were definitely absent. For to say "never absent" is to remove the "emptiness" of the view of nihility and the view of annihilation, and not to grasp at the existence of the view of existence and the view of permanence. To say "never present" is to remove the existence of the view of existence and the view of permanence, and not to grasp at the absence of the view of annihilation and the view of nihility.

How could it be like the refuters, who take "existence" to be the existence of [substantial] existence, and "absence" to be the absence of [substantial] nothingness? Therefore the treatise states: "Wherein they arrive has never differed; what is seen of them has never been the same; to go against this is called blockage, to accord with it is called penetration." Thus, what the treatise calls "things of the past have never been present-or-absent" originally has no penetration or blockage; that penetration and blockage arise solely from the human mind of going-against and according-with.

The treatise Things Do Not Shift states: "The effect is not held in common with the cause; it is through the cause that there is the effect. It is through the cause that there is the effect, and so the cause of the past is not annihilated. Because the effect is not held in common with the cause, the cause does not shift into the present." Not annihilated, not arriving—this is clearly the essential import of Not Shifting.

But Master Trừng rebuts again: "If the cause of the past is not annihilated and does not change, then sentient beings will forever have no principle by which to become Buddhas." All of this is because Master Trừng misunderstood the meaning of the treatise, and so faulted Master Sengzhao.

Master Sengzhao says "the effect is not held in common with the cause"—meaning that at the very moment the effect manifests, the character of the cause has already been annihilated. To say "it is through the cause that there is the effect" means that although the effect is not the cause, the function of the cause is never lost. Therefore he says: "It is through the cause that there is the effect; the cause is not annihilated, [residing] in the past." This is also what the Vimalakīrti (Tịnh Danh) Sūtra calls: "Though nature is silent and still, the things that are done are not lost." Because "the effect is not held in common with the cause," therefore though it exists it does not [substantially] exist.

Because "it is through the cause that there is the effect," therefore though it is absent it is not [utterly] absent. "Neither existing nor absent" is clearly the essential import of Not Shifting.

Must there definitely be some thing that is not annihilated and does not change before one may call it "not shifting"? Must one hold the cause of the past to be definitely cut off and annihilated before one may call it "the emptiness of nature"? If one insists that only after the cause is annihilated does the effect then arise, how is this different from hoping that a dead hen will crow, or seeking ripe fruit from a rotten sprout!

If, knowing the principle that "the cause of the past is not annihilated and does not change," sentient beings can never become Buddhas, then once the cause of the past has become cut off and annihilated, sentient beings would likewise have no principle by which to become Buddhas! This is all because Master Trừng knows only that the point of the awl is sharp, and does not know that the head of the chisel is square.

Again it is said: since there is cause and effect, this is impermanence. If it is impermanence, then there is displacement and transformation—so how can it be called "things do not shift"? This is because Master Trừng does not know that the permanent and the impermanent, the shifting and the not-shifting, are clearly not two dharmas, and only because of delusion does he take them to be different.

If one can know precisely the essential meaning of impermanence, then one can awaken to the principle of the emptiness of nature. Having awakened to the emptiness of nature, one forever abides at peace in "the abiding of nature" and sees that things do not shift. Thus, not-shifting, the abiding of nature, impermanence, and the emptiness of nature—though four phrases—combine into one.

Therefore the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment (Viên Giác) states: "Knowing them to be sky-flowers[3], there is no revolving [in cycles]." Hence each single phrase of Master Sengzhao necessarily cuts off "emptiness-and-existence" at the incipient point[4], and harmonizes and penetrates "the true and the conventional" beyond all language. Furthermore, chapters and commentaries must rely on language in order to eliminate what is wrong—how could one follow along with them in order to seek out flaws?

When Master Trừng deliberately points to a deer and calls it a horse, would Master Sengzhao consent to be subdued? Even so, all these matters are because Master Trừng employs skillful means and pretends not to know—it is the method of using a thief to attack a thief, of using error to remove error. Could it really be so?

Someone says: "From the time Master Trừng refuted that treatise down to the present, the great elders and venerable seniors of the realm who have refuted what Master Trừng refuted number some several tens of persons. Why is it that none of them have been able to stop up Master Trừng's mouth?" But each time they debated, it only helped to sharpen still further the style of Master Trừng's argumentation; and it likewise only added to the faults of Master Sengzhao.

In this case, is it that the understanding of those venerable seniors is truly not equal to Master Trừng's, or that the meaning of "not shifting" has some error that absolutely cannot be remedied? It is none of these! For those several tens of venerable seniors are all great beings who have forgotten name and fame; for the sake of the Dharma and for the sake of people, seeing that Master Trừng's refutational meaning had places that were not complete, and that this master's understanding had places not fully clarified, they each pointed these out so that Master Trừng might bring them to fuller expression.

How could it truly be that their learning was insufficient and so their understanding fell short? How could the meaning of "not shifting" have any error? If it were not so, then why is it that the venerable seniors had only a heart of compassion for Master Sengzhao yet no means of helping Master Sengzhao?

Furthermore, the science of logic (Nhân minh, Hetuvidyā) has its conventions of demolishing and establishing, which are the excellent rules for demolishing the heterodox. Master Trừng relied upon these as the basis for demolishing Master Sengzhao's treatise. But the masters all passed this over and did not address it.

How is this any different from wishing to rescue the million troops at the city of Changping yet using bare hands to resist the mighty Qin army? How is this any different from Gongshu just taking up his tools to straighten timber, while Lilou, presuming upon his own sharp eyes, stubbornly intervenes to stop him? Although Lilou's sharp eyes would surely not mistake the fine and the flawed places of the timber, this would not be what Gongshu inwardly accepts, nor would it be the timber itself knowing its own nature.

To help Sengzhao by this method—not only can a few venerable seniors not accomplish it, but I fear that were one to grind the entire great-thousandfold world into dust, and each mote of dust were a venerable senior, and each venerable senior were to have mouths as numerous as those motes of dust to debate the matter, it would only add still more to the faults of Master Sengzhao, and yet would not be enough to subdue Master Trừng's argumentation.

I know that all of this is not the intent of the venerable seniors. They all feign deafness and feign muteness because they wish together to bring to full expression the beauty and profundity of the principle of not-shifting.

Master Trừng has already used the science of logic to demolish Master Sengzhao's Thesis (Tôn, pakṣa). Now I too shall borrow the science of logic in order to establish the meaning of not-shifting. This is what is called borrowing a hand to strike with the fist, following the road in order to return home. The Thesis and Reason, the demolishing and establishing, of Master Trừng are fully set out in his refutational treatise, and are all errors that Master Trừng feigned to set up.

Now I shall briefly cite one item to try to discuss it. The first is "the self-character of the Dharma being mutually contradictory" (Pháp tự tướng tương vi). The Reason states: "Seeking things of the past in the past, then in the past they were never absent; seeking things of the past in the present, then in the present they were never present." If so, then they existed in the past and are absent now.

This Reason has shifted over to the example of the dissimilar instance (Dị phẩm dụ), and therefore commits the fault of "the self-character of the Dharma being mutually contradictory." But this is truly incorrect. For according to the method of the science of logic, "self-allowance" (Tự hứa) is the borrowing of words in order to eliminate fault. Master Sengzhao did not say "they exist" but said "they were never absent"; he did not say "they are absent" but said "they were never present." These are two phrases converging into one, with absence and existence mutually penetrating.

To say "never absent" is in order to remove the view of annihilation for people—how could it grasp at existence and become attached to permanence?

To say "never absent" is to block people's mind of grasping at permanence—how could it fall into "absence" so as to allow annihilation? Thus one knows that the phrase "never" is precisely the borrowing of words in order to eliminate fault. In this way the three members—Thesis, Reason, and Example—of Master Sengzhao are originally perfect, and so the faults raised by the demolisher are truly displayed in vain. The remaining faults of "the contradictory reason" are all likewise the same as this, and so I shall not cite many.

Nevertheless, now let me proceed to argue on the basis of what Master Trừng has established. But in sum, these are all not the original intent of Master Sengzhao. If one establishes [the inference] according to the treatise, then one must say:

Thesis (Tôn): Things (the subject-dharma) do not shift (the predicate-dharma).

Reason (Nhân): Because each and every one abides in the nature of true emptiness that is at once silent and still.

Similar example (Đồng dụ): Like rivers and streams vying in their flow, yet the current remains calm and moist.

Dissimilar example (Dị dụ): Like great waters gushing and surging up, that is, waves stirred in accordance with the wind.

This formulation has texts that record it clearly, and is precisely True Establishment. In that case, things are the things of nature; nature is precisely the nature of things. Raise up a single thing, and the whole substance of the thing is nature.

Speak of nature, and all things are fully present. Therefore, the moment one holds up a single thread of cloth, a single strand of hair, one suddenly awakens to the original mind; one blows out a single lamp, and the great-thousandfold world blazes with light. To speak of "the abiding of nature" in this way is what the Lotus Sūtra truly states: "This Dharma abides in the Dharma-station." To speak of "the emptiness of nature" in this way is the teaching of the Prajñā sūtra: "Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form"; the Avataṃsaka (Hoa Nghiêm) Sūtra says: "Each and every one does not arrive at the other";

and the Vimalakīrti (Tịnh Danh) Sūtra says: "The karmic cause is not lost." These are the very passages of scripture that Master Trừng cited in order to refute the thesis of Not Shifting.

I too rely upon these same passages to demonstrate the meaning of Not Shifting. Is this not what is meant by "what is constructed has never differed; what is seen has never been the same"? Even so, how could Master Trừng truly have any point of disagreement?

For there is this treatise, but there is no [genuine] refutation of it. Even so, I too have only skimmed this treatise like the recent masters, and so I say: "Surely, even though one may praise it, this is still not equal to refuting it—only one must attend to how that refutation is carried out." Therefore one should know that Master Trừng's refutational treatise is not a refutation of the doctrine of Not Shifting; on the contrary, it explains Not Shifting most thoroughly.

How could a reader of the treatise Things Do Not Shift pass it over? In that case, the meaning of Not Shifting must definitely be the wondrous principle of the Mahāyāna emptiness of nature.

Why then did National Teacher Qingliang Chengguan (Thanh Lương Trừng Quán) also say: "It is excessively similar to the ordinary view of existence held by the Hīnayāna (Tiểu thừa)"? The words of National Teacher Qingliang are originally clear; it is only readers who are deluded. For since he said "excessively similar," it is surely not truly the same. It is like saying that jade-stone is excessively taken to be jade, or the eye of a fish is excessively taken to be a pearl. Are pearls and jade really fish-eyes and jade-stone? The reason National Teacher Qingliang said "excessively similar" is that he feared students would mistakenly take it to be the same as the recent masters. How can one do the reverse and use this to prove that [the doctrine] is in error?

Alas! On the basis of the meanings set forth above, one knows that what National Teacher Qingliang proclaimed first, Chan Master Nguyệt Xuyên Trừng harmonized with afterward, and even the venerable seniors attacked from the side—in their words they differ as much as the Hu and the Yue, but in their intent the inner and the outer cooperate with one another. Yet all of it is essentially a wish to bring forth together the beauty and profundity of the principle of Not Shifting. Therefore I too, for the sake of this, offer my demonstration.

Notes:

[1] Sengzhao 僧肇 (384–414): an eminent monk of China who lived during the Eastern Jin period, of the Zhang clan, a native of Chang'an.

[2] Ocean-treasury 海藏: a metaphor for the Buddha's expounding of the Dharma. The great ocean of the Buddha-Dharma does not discriminate between good and bad, nor does it divide the sentient from the insentient; all are held within the Buddha-Dharma, and so the ocean is used as a metaphor.

[3] Sky-flowers 空華 (Skt. Khapuṣpa): blossoms appearing amid empty space. In empty space there are originally no flowers, but because a person has diseased eyes, he falsely sees illusory blossoms appearing. The Buddha often used this expression to liken a realm that is originally unreal: because of mistaken understanding, one sees there to be a permanently abiding self, or a real substance—this is called "sky-flowers."

[4] Incipient point 機先: a Chan technical term. The omen that precedes the workings of things. The Chan school borrows this term to describe the state in which a single thought has not yet stirred, a single word has not yet been uttered; that is, before we have given rise to the discriminating consciousness of feeling. This is a term synonymous with "before heaven and earth had yet come to be."