English
English version The ‘Tathagatagarbha’ (Buddha-nature) experiences suffering and joy and is associated with causes. It both arises and ceases. Furthermore, it is said in the scriptures: ‘All dharmas do not arise,’ I say this means momentary arising and ceasing. Also, it is said: ‘Neither arising nor ceasing,’ this is the meaning of impermanence, and so on. Upon careful consideration, True Thusness (Tathata, the true nature of things) is neither arising nor ceasing. Why? Because its nature is apart from discrimination and different from what is commonly said. Section 35, the chapter on the ‘Four Slanders’ (the four slanders are produced by ordinary people because they are deluded about conditions. First is the slander of addition, second is the slander of subtraction, third is the slander of contradiction, and fourth is the slander of frivolous talk) says that the so-called ‘slander of addition’ refers to discussing all dharmas, which arise from conditions, without a creator, and because they do not abide when they arise, and because they have no self-nature, they cannot be reached by discrimination. The nature of dharmas is like this, and cannot be grasped. However, ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles, when dharmas arise, immediately cling to them as ‘existent’. But the nature of conditioned dharmas is apart from ‘existence’. To cling to ‘existence’ on dharmas that are apart from ‘existence’ is not in accordance with truth, so it is called ‘slander of addition’. Since ‘existence’ has become a slander, then saying ‘non-existence’ should be reasonable, right? The meaning is also not like this. Although the nature of conditioned dharmas is ‘existent’, when conditions come together and manifest, it cannot be said to be ‘non-existent’. To cling to ‘non-existence’ on dharmas that are not ‘non-existent’ is not in accordance with reason, so it is called ‘slander of subtraction’. Since ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ are both faults, then saying ‘both existent and non-existent’ should be the truth, right? The answer is that conditions are one dharma, and their nature does not contradict each other. That which does not contradict each other is called conditioned dharma. ‘Both existent and non-existent’ is a dharma whose nature contradicts each other, so it is not a condition. Because it is not a condition, it is the slander of contradiction. Since ‘both existent and non-existent’ is a dharma that violates the law, and does not accord with true views, then saying ‘neither existent nor non-existent’ should accord with truth, right? The answer is that discussing truth is based on conditions to reveal it. ‘Neither existent nor non-existent’ is outside of conditions, and does not accord with reason. To make frivolous talk about dharmas is called the slander of frivolous talk. Discussing that which is discriminated, and corresponds to acceptance and rejection, is all emotional calculation, and does not accord with true reason. To be apart from thought and cut off from form is called the Middle Way. Therefore, it is said in the scriptures that conditioned dharmas are apart from ‘existence’ and apart from ‘non-existence’. Commentary on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana --------------------------------------------------------------------------------