淨名玄論 6.23

6.23

問：以何文證二諦是教？答：文處甚多，且各舉一經一論。論云「諸佛依二諦說法」，故二諦為教。《大品》云「菩薩住二諦中，為眾生說法。為著有者說空、為著空者說有。」故知二諦是教。論舉佛說經明菩薩說，故經論佛菩薩皆明二諦是教也。問：若以五義二文證二諦為教者，今亦以五難二文明二諦非教。一者若聞說二諦是教者，佛說教門則有二諦，不說則應無二諦。若爾，本以二諦生於二智，佛不說二諦則無二諦，既無二諦，佛何所照有耶？二者若二諦是教，六度等行皆是世諦。佛不說世諦則無世諦，便無六度等行。若爾，但有詮教法寶，便無善業法寶。三者二諦為境發生二智，二諦名境界法寶。二諦是教，但有詮教法寶，亦無境界法寶。若言教生智故轉名境者，佛不說教則無教可轉，便無有境也。四者若二諦是教，色等萬法皆是世諦。世諦既是教者，色等萬法亦應是教。若爾，佛不說世諦，即無色等萬法。五者世諦是教者，世諦唯有教火，應無實火用。若火唯是教，口中說火則應燒口。次引二文證二諦非教。若言真諦是教者，經云「有佛無佛性相常住」，而教則有佛方有、無佛則無，何得常住？經云「十二因緣，有佛無佛常自有之」，故知世諦非教。答：諦有二種，一於諦、二教諦。於諦者，色未曾有無，而於凡是有，名俗諦；於聖是空，名真諦。以於凡是有名俗諦故，萬法不失；於聖是空名真諦故，有佛無佛性相常住。教諦者，諸佛菩薩了色未曾有無，為化眾生故，說有無為二諦，欲令因此有無悟不有無是教。而舊義明二諦是理者，此是二於諦耳。於諦望教諦，非但失不二理，亦失能表之教耳。

Question: What texts prove that the two truths are teaching? Answer: The textual passages are extremely numerous; let us briefly cite one sūtra and one treatise each. The treatise (*Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*) says: 'The Buddhas teach the Dharma relying on the two truths'; therefore the two truths are teaching. The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings. For those attached to being they teach emptiness; for those attached to emptiness they teach being.' Thus we know the two truths are teaching. The treatise cites what the Buddha said, and the sūtra clarifies what the bodhisattva said; therefore, in both sūtras and treatises, Buddhas and bodhisattvas all clarify that the two truths are teaching. Question: If you prove that the two truths are teaching with five meanings and two texts, now we also use five objections and two texts to show that the two truths are not teaching. First, if one hears that the two truths are teaching, then when the Buddha speaks the teaching gate there are two truths, and when he does not speak there should be no two truths. If so, originally the two truths gave rise to the two cognitions; when the Buddha does not speak the two truths, there are no two truths, and since there are no two truths, what does the Buddha illuminate? Second, if the two truths are teaching, the six pāramitās and other practices are all saṃvṛti-satya. When the Buddha does not speak saṃvṛti-satya, there is no saṃvṛti-satya, and then there would be no six pāramitās and other practices. If so, there would only be the Dharma jewel of the expressive teaching, and no Dharma jewel of wholesome karma. Third, the two truths serve as the object that generates the two cognitions; the two truths are named the Dharma jewel of the objective realm. If the two truths are teaching, there is only the Dharma jewel of the expressive teaching, and no Dharma jewel of the objective realm. If you say that because the teaching generates cognition it is alternatively called an object, then when the Buddha does not speak the teaching, there is no teaching that can be converted, and there would be no object. Fourth, if the two truths are teaching, form and the myriad phenomena are all saṃvṛti-satya. Since saṃvṛti-satya is teaching, form and the myriad phenomena should also be teaching. If so, when the Buddha does not speak saṃvṛti-satya, there would be no form or myriad phenomena. Fifth, if saṃvṛti-satya is teaching, saṃvṛti-satya would only have the teaching-fire, and should lack the function of real fire. If fire were only teaching, speaking 'fire' with the mouth should burn the mouth. Next, we cite two texts to prove that the two truths are not teaching. If one says that paramārtha-satya is teaching, the sūtra says: 'Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics permanently abide'; but teaching exists only when there is a Buddha and does not exist when there is no Buddha—how could it permanently abide? The sūtra says: 'Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, they permanently exist of themselves'; hence we know saṃvṛti-satya is not teaching. Answer: There are two kinds of truths: first, truths in relation to [perspective] (yuditi); second, truths as teaching (jiaoditi). Truths in relation to [perspective] means: form has never been being or non-being, yet in relation to the ordinary it is being, termed saṃvṛti-satya; in relation to the sage it is emptiness, termed paramārtha-satya. Because being in relation to the ordinary is named saṃvṛti-satya, the myriad phenomena are not lost; because emptiness in relation to the sage is named paramārtha-satya, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics permanently abide. Truths as teaching means: the Buddhas and bodhisattvas thoroughly comprehend that form has never been being or non-being, and to transform sentient beings, they speak of being and non-being as the two truths, wishing to make them awaken through this being and non-being to neither being nor non-being—this is teaching. Now the old doctrines explaining that the two truths are principle: this is merely the two truths in relation to [perspective]. When truths in relation to [perspective] are compared with truths as teaching, they not only lose the nondual principle, but also lose the teaching capable of expressing it.