.

P.449


    The Shih Erh Men Lun, or Twelve Gate Treatise, attributed
to Nagarjuna, is  an  important  piece  of the  puzzle  which
constitutes   the  development   and  evolution   of  Chinese
Buddhism. As Dr.  Cheng points out, the style and approach of
the  text  run  extremely   parallel   to  the  more  popular
Mulamadhyamaka  Karika, or Doctrine  of the Middle Way (Chung
Lun).  As the latter is generally  recognized  to be from the
pen of the pivotal  Buddhism  thinker  Nagarjuna, there is no
reason  to doubt  that the Twelve  Gate is also a product  of
this  important  figure.   However,  while  the  similarities
between the two texts are striking, the differences  are also
significant.
    In Chapter  3 of his introductory  essay, Cheng discusses
four major distinctions between the Twelve Gate and the Chung
Lun, which justify the former's individual importance  as one
of the three central texts of the San Lun or 'Three Doctrine"
School,  the  Chinese  counterpart  of  the  original  Indian
Madhyamika School.
    The first  is that  the Twelve  Gate serves  as a concise
crystallization  of the thought of Nagarjuna  as expressed in
the Chung  Lun.  Secondly, while  the Chung  Lun was  written
primarily  for monks of the Hinayana schools of Buddhism, the
Twelve  Gate was written  to be understood  by Buddhists  and
non-Buddhists alike.  Thirdly, the Twelve Gate does deal with
some issues not covered  in the Chung Lun, such as the notion
of the Creator;  and finally  that the Twelve  Gate goes into
more detail  on certain  topics  which are not completely  or
clearly  handled  in the  Chung  Lun.
    As one of the three central  texts, along  with the Chung
Lun  (also  by  Nagarjuna),  and  the  Hundred  Treatise  (by
Aryadeva), recognized  by the  San  Lun  school, the text  is
significant  for  its  role  as a transitional  link  between
Indian Madhyamika  thought  and Chinese Mahayana  thought  in
general.  Translated  by Kumarajiva from the no longer extant
Sanskrit text, the text represents a period of scholarship in
which Buddhist ideas came to be filtered

P.450                                

through  traditional  Chinese  terminology,  arriving  at  an
expression of Buddhist thought which, although not altogether
consistently  faithful to the Sanskrit, nevertheless provided
roots  for an indigenous, particularly  Chinese  approach  to
Buddhism in general, and Madhyamika's  negative dialectics in
particular.
    Aside from the historical importance of the text, it also
deals with several key concepts in Mahayana Buddhism. Central
to  the  exposition  is the  idea  of  Emptiness.  Dr.  Cheng
outlines  four  understandings  of  Emptiness  that  he finds
within  the  San  Lun  tradition: a) the absence  of definite
nature,  characteristic,  or  function;b) that  concepts  are
unintelligible  by nature;  c) a means by which the notion of
"things" is devalued;and  d) a soteriorogical  or pedagogical
device  (upaya).  Basically, in order  to avoid  the  extreme
positions of Being and Non-Being, the Madhyamaka  follows the
Middle Way of Emptiness, which is non-propositional. As Cheng
quotes  the great San Lun master  Chi Tsang, "Right  View is
called 'Right'  because all views have been abandoned.  if it
were accepted  as a view, it would become  a wrong view which
ought  to be rejected."  (p.21) When, on the same page Cheng
adds, 'Wisdom  is  not  the  attainment  of a theory, but  an
absence of it," he could almost be quoting from the Lao Tzu,
chapter 48:

    In the pursuit  of learning, one knows more every day, in
    the pursuit of the way one does less every day. One does
    less and less until one does nothing at all, and when one
    does nothing at all there is nothing that is undone.(1)

Here we can again see clearly how fertile a garden was
already present in China to receive  the seeds planted by the
early Buddhist pioneers from India, resulting in a distinctly
Chinese variety of Buddhist thought.
    Some confusion  does seem to arise from consideration  of
several  specific  aspects  of the translation  itself.  Most
significantly, Dr.  Cheng chooses to render you wei(a) and wu
wei(b)  as  "created  things"  and  "noncreated  things".  In
keeping  with  the  spirit  of Buddhist  philosophy  and  its
emphasis  on Causality, these  terms would  probably  be more
correctly translated  as equivalent  to the Sanskrit samskrta
and    asamskrta,   meaning    "conditioned    things"    and
"unconditioned   things",  retaining   the  implications   of
causality present in the Sankrit term.

P.451

    In addition, Dr.  Cheng  uses the English  "formed"  when
translating  the Chinese cheng(c) when Nagarjuna's  emphasis on
the propositional  nature of truth might rather  suggest  the
word "established", for its connotations of intention.
    Another  element  of the translation  which  also  proves
confusing  is when the two Chinese terms Wo (d) (atman, self)
and Shen(e) (spirit, soul) are both rendered  as "Self".  The
text here  is very difficult  to penetrate, and the arbitrary
and  inconsistent  use of the  word  "Self'  serves  only  to
further confuse the issue.
    Moreover,  Cheng  seems  to  miss  the  point  when  he
translates  Xiang Wei(f) on page  60 as "opposite"  and  on
page 69 as "contradictory".  The distinction  he fails to
grasp  is  between  contradiction  and  opposition.   Whereas
contradiction  implies a relationship between two terms A and
B  such  that  B=~A,  allowing   for  no  third   possibility,
opposition  allows  for a third  term  C such that  C is also
equal  to  A.   For  example,  the  two  terms  "human"   and
"non-human" are contradictory: there is nothing which fits in
both categories, and everything fits into one category or the
other.  On the other  hand, the terms "human"  and "dog"  are
merely contradictory, because we can posit a third term "cat"
which is also not human, but which is furthermore  not "dog".
So we see that contradiction  is a more encompassing  concept
than opposition, a distinction  which  is disregarded  in Dr.
Cheng's translation.
    In general, the problem with the translation  seems to be
its lack of emphasis on this linguistic, conventional  aspect
of  Nagarjuna's  thought.  Since  Nirvana, for  Nagarjuna, is
prapanca pasasama, the annihilation  of the manifold of named
things, the  nature  of so-called  "samsara"  is  linguistic/
conceptual, and therefore empty of meaning.  This emphasis on
the dispositional  as opposed to the propositional  nature of
truth  is  not  easily  found  in  Dr.  Cheng's  translation.
However, the work, which includes several splendid glossaries
of Chinese and Sanskrit terms, is generally  extremely useful
and fills a critical deficiency  in the exposure  to the West
of pivotal Buddhist texts.

NOTES

1. from D.C. Lau's translation of the Tao Te Ching,
   Penguin Books, NY. 1963.

P.452

CHINESE GLOSSARY

a:有為  b:無為  c:成  d:我  e:神  f:相違