Question: Why do you discuss [the concept of] no-truth in both Hinayāna and Mahāyāna?

Answer: The Ta chih tu lun [Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom] says, “I am not criticizing the nirvāṇa attained in the mind of the sage, but the attachment to nirvāṇa among those who have not yet attained [enlightenment] which gives rise to vain speculation [prapañca].”⁶²² It is like arousing attachments when coming in contact with [the concept of] non-Being [and mistaking it for nothingness]. Therefore one destroys [the notion of one truth] by saying “no-truth.”

Question: If this is so, then one should criticize both the attainment and non-attainment of the Hinayānist, and one should criticize both the attainment and non-attainment of the Mahāyānist.

Answer: This is not the case. Those of the Hinayāna have distinct delusions which should be removed and a distinct reality which they should manifest. Therefore though it is said that they have attainment, this should be criticized. The Middle Path is not like this. Why then should its attainment be criticized?

Question: If so, then the Middle Path alone should be the one real truth, and should not be called “no-truth.”

Answer: It is necessary to say “no-truth” for the sake of those who have not fulfilled attainment, and in their attachments give rise to delusion. For those who have real attainment, there is [a positive truth]; for those [lost] in vain speculation, there is none.⁶²³

622

The Shakusen kōgi refers to the Ta chih tu lun, fascicle 1.12, but the closest passage I could find in this section were the verses on prapañca, which read in part, “If one relies on one’s own mistaken views, one will give rise to all sorts of vain speculations.” These are verses which illustrate the fourth siddhānta. return

623

The section on the subtlety of objects continues for a couple of pages in a section titled “Exposing the Harmony of All Objects.” Here Chih-i discusses the relationship between all of the above subjects, such as which parts of twelvefold conditioned co-arising correspond to which parts of the ten such-likes, and so forth. This illustrates the integrated nature, or interrelatedness, of all these aspects of objective reality, thus manifesting Chih-i’s basic theme of variety within a single reality. This is the last part of the section on subtle objects, but it is not included in my translation because of its length and repetitiveness. Chih-i’s point is already clear. return