Chapter 24. Investigation of the Noble Truths

If all this is empty, there is neither arising nor passing away; from this it follows for you that the four noble truths do not exist.

Full knowledge, abandoning, cultivation and direct realization — through the non-existence of the four noble truths these become impossible.

Because they do not exist, the four noble fruits do not exist either; and in the absence of the fruits there are neither those who abide in the fruits nor those who are on the way to them.

If those eight pudgala-persons do not exist, then there is no Saṅgha either; and through the non-existence of the noble truths the true Dharma does not exist either.

And when there is neither Dharma nor Saṅgha, how will there be a Buddha? Thus, in saying this, you deny the Three Jewels as well.

You deny emptiness, the existence of fruits, non-dharma and Dharma itself, and all worldly conventions as well.

abhidharmika wrote:

You deny emptiness, the existence of fruits, non-dharma and Dharma itself

To this we reply: you do not understand the purpose of emptiness, nor emptiness itself, nor its meaning — and that is why you suffer such a defeat.

The teaching of the Dharma by the Buddhas rests on two truths: the conventional truth of the world and the truth in the ultimate sense.

Those who do not distinguish the division between these two truths do not comprehend the profound essence of the Buddha’s teaching.

Without relying on convention, the ultimate cannot be shown; without reaching the ultimate, nirvāṇa cannot be attained.

Emptiness wrongly seen destroys one of weak understanding — like a snake wrongly grasped, or a spell wrongly applied.

That is why the mind of the Sage turned away from the intention to teach the Dharma, once he realized how hard this Dharma is for the weak-minded to fathom.

And that objection concerning emptiness which you raise once again — the consequence of that fault does not touch us: in what is empty it does not arise.

For the one whom emptiness fits, everything fits; for the one whom emptiness does not fit, nothing fits.

And you, heaping your own faults upon us, are like a rider sitting on a horse who has forgotten the very horse.

If you see existents as existing through their own nature, then it turns out that you see existents as having neither causes nor conditions.

You deny effect and cause, and the agent, and the instrument, and the act, and arising, and ceasing, and fruit.

That which is dependent origination we declare to be emptiness; it is a designation dependent upon [something], and it is the middle way.

There is no dharma whatsoever that arises other than dependently; therefore there is no dharma whatsoever that is not empty.

If all this is non-empty, there is neither arising nor passing away; from this it follows for you that the four noble truths do not exist.

Whence will suffering come, if it does not arise dependently? For suffering has been declared impermanent, and in own nature it does not exist.

That which already exists through own nature — out of what would it arise again? Therefore for the one who denies emptiness there is no arising either.

For suffering that exists through own nature there is no cessation; by insisting upon own nature you deny cessation.

If the path has own nature, then its cultivation becomes impossible; and if that path is cultivated, then you have no own nature [for it] at all.

When there is neither suffering, nor its arising, nor its cessation, then what path, being the cessation of suffering, will lead to the goal?

If the non-knowing of it is through own nature, how will full knowledge arise again? Is own nature not fixed?

In the same way, for you abandoning, direct realization and cultivation, like full knowledge, become impossible — and so do the four fruits.

The fruit that is not attained through own nature — how could it ever be attained by one who holds on to own nature?

In the absence of the fruits there are neither those who abide in the fruits nor those who are on the way to them; and if those eight pudgala-persons do not exist, then there is no Saṅgha either.

And through the non-existence of the noble truths the true Dharma does not exist either; and when there is neither Dharma nor Saṅgha, how will there be a Buddha?

It turns out for you that there is a Buddha even without dependence on awakening, and likewise it turns out for you that there is awakening even without dependence on a Buddha.

And one who by own nature is not a Buddha will not, even striving for awakening, attain awakening on his bodhisattva path — according to your teaching.

And no one will ever do either Dharma or non-dharma; for what is there for the non-empty to do? Own nature is not made.

For with you the fruit exists even without Dharma and without non-dharma; but a fruit conditioned by Dharma and non-dharma you do not have.

And if with you the fruit conditioned by Dharma and non-dharma does exist, then how is a fruit that has arisen out of Dharma and non-dharma non-empty for you?

You deny all worldly conventions when you deny emptiness, which is dependent origination.

For the one who denies emptiness there would be nothing to be done, action would be unbegun, and an agent would be one who does not act.

A world devoid of own nature would become unborn, unceasing, immovable, devoid of the variety of states.

And the attaining of what has not yet been attained, and the act of putting an end to suffering, and the abandoning of all kleśas — none of this would exist, if everything were non-empty.

The one who sees dependent origination sees this too: suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the path.