淨名玄論 6.27

6.27

次明二諦但說但不說者，以空有為世諦、有空為真諦。世諦說有、真諦則說空，故二諦但說。以空有為世諦，空有即是假有，假有不可說有、假有不可說無、假有不可說亦有亦無、假有不可說非有非無，故世諦假有絕四句，故世諦不可說。真諦假無亦絕四句，故真諦不可說。不可說而說，世諦名假有、真諦名假無。故二諦但說，一說一不說者。世諦假有，假有故有說；真諦是假無，假無則無說。故世諦說真諦不說。假有雖有而無、假無雖無而有，故俗不說而真說。次二諦但說但不說者，二諦俱無生，故但不說。問：但無生，何有二諦？答：世諦無實生，故但不生；真諦無假生，故云不生。問：此猶是舊義耳。世諦中無性實生、真諦無有假生也，如世諦中無實我、真諦中無假我。答：今言世諦無實者，有所得一切假實皆是性實，故因緣世諦絕此實也。無所得方是假，乃為真諦所絕也。二諦但不絕，即二諦但說，世諦不絕假生滅、真諦不絕假不生滅，故二諦但不絕。即但說世諦絕真諦不絕者，還如上世諦雖不絕，不絕而恒絕；真諦雖絕而不絕。次就單複論絕不絕義。一往空有為世諦、有空為真諦，則世諦不絕真諦絕。次空有皆是世諦、非空有為真諦，即絕不絕皆世諦、非絕不絕方是真諦。次空有二、非空有不二，二不二皆俗、非二不二為真。則絕不絕為二、非絕不絕為不二，二不二皆不絕、非二非不二方是絕。又此三重皆是二諦，二諦皆是教，皆是不絕。則以不二為理，理名為絕。問：何故明此四重絕不絕義？答：欲簡異舊絕。舊絕但有初重絕，無後三絕，故明之也。問：絕與如不如何異？答：此有多門。若世諦絕實生滅，名為世諦不如；真諦絕假生滅為如，不絕假不生滅為不如。問：云何絕實生滅為如耶？答：此取空義為如，以世諦無實生滅，故實生滅所空以為如。真諦亦爾。二者就前說不說明如不如。世諦說生滅為不生不滅為諦世不說，名世諦不說。此明假生滅是有，故名不如。不生不滅此是絕假生滅，亦是空義，所以為如。前如則淺，後如則深；前如空性，後如空假。真諦亦具此二如、二不如也。

Next, clarifying that the two satyas are only spoken and only not spoken: taking emptiness and existence as saṃvṛti-satya, and the emptiness of existence as paramārtha-satya. Saṃvṛti-satya speaks of existence, while paramārtha-satya speaks of emptiness; therefore both satyas are only spoken. Taking the existence of emptiness as saṃvṛti-satya, the existence of emptiness is precisely provisional existence. Provisional existence cannot be said to be existent, provisional existence cannot be said to be non-existent, provisional existence cannot be said to be both existent and non-existent, and provisional existence cannot be said to be neither existent nor non-existent; therefore provisional existence of saṃvṛti-satya transcends the catuṣkoṭi, and so saṃvṛti-satya cannot be spoken. The provisional non-existence of paramārtha-satya also transcends the catuṣkoṭi, and so paramārtha-satya cannot be spoken. Speaking what cannot be spoken, saṃvṛti-satya is called provisional existence, and paramārtha-satya is called provisional non-existence. Therefore, both satyas are only spoken; and one speaks while one does not speak: saṃvṛti-satya is provisional existence, and because of provisional existence there is speaking; paramārtha-satya is provisional non-existence, and provisional non-existence means there is no speaking. Hence saṃvṛti-satya speaks and paramārtha-satya does not speak. Provisional existence, although existent, is non-existent; provisional non-existence, although non-existent, is existent; therefore saṃvṛti does not speak while paramārtha speaks.
Next, regarding both satyas being only spoken and only not spoken: both satyas are equally without arising, hence both are only not spoken.
Question: If both are simply without arising, how can there be two satyas?
Answer: Saṃvṛti-satya has no real arising, hence it is only unarisen; paramārtha-satya has no provisional arising, hence it is said to be unarisen.
Question: This is still merely the old doctrine: within saṃvṛti-satya there is no intrinsic real arising, and paramārtha-satya has no provisional arising, just as within saṃvṛti-satya there is no real self, and within paramārtha-satya there is no provisional self.
Answer: Now, saying that saṃvṛti-satya has no reality means that all provisional and real [things] with apprehension are intrinsic realities; therefore the saṃvṛti-satya of causes and conditions transcends this reality. Only non-apprehension is provisional, and it is precisely transcended by paramārtha-satya.
When the two satyas are both non-transcending, then the two satyas are only spoken: saṃvṛti-satya does not transcend provisional arising and ceasing, and paramārtha-satya does not transcend provisional non-arising and non-ceasing; therefore the two satyas are both non-transcending, which is precisely only spoken. When saṃvṛti-satya transcends and paramārtha-satya does not transcend, it is still as above: although saṃvṛti-satya does not transcend, while not transcending it constantly transcends; although paramārtha-satya transcends, it does not transcend.
Next, discussing the meaning of transcendence and non-transcendence in terms of single and compound: provisionally, emptiness and existence are saṃvṛti-satya, and the emptiness of existence is paramārtha-satya; then saṃvṛti-satya does not transcend, while paramārtha-satya transcends. Next, both emptiness and existence are saṃvṛti-satya, and neither empty nor existent is paramārtha-satya; then both transcending and non-transcending are saṃvṛti-satya, and only neither transcending nor non-transcending is paramārtha-satya. Next, emptiness and existence are dual, and neither empty nor existent is non-dual; both duality and non-duality are saṃvṛti, and neither dual nor non-dual is paramārtha. Then transcending and non-transcending are dual, neither transcending nor non-transcending is non-dual; both duality and non-duality are non-transcending, and only neither dual nor non-dual is transcending. Furthermore, these three tiers are all the two satyas, both satyas are teachings, and all are non-transcending. Then taking nonduality as the principle, the principle is called transcending.
Question: Why explain these four tiers of the meaning of transcendence and non-transcendence?
Answer: In order to distinguish it from the old transcendence. The old transcendence only had the first tier of transcendence, and lacked the subsequent three transcendences; therefore it is explained.
Question: How does transcendence differ from thusness and non-thusness?
Answer: There are multiple approaches to this. If saṃvṛti-satya transcends real arising and ceasing, it is called saṃvṛti-satya non-thusness; paramārtha-satya transcending provisional arising and ceasing is thusness, while not transcending provisional non-arising and non-ceasing is non-thusness.
Question: Why is transcending real arising and ceasing taken as thusness?
Answer: This takes the meaning of emptiness as thusness: because saṃvṛti-satya has no real arising and ceasing, the emptiness of real arising and ceasing is taken as thusness. The same applies to paramārtha-satya.
Second, explaining thusness and non-thusness based on the previous [discussion of] speaking and non-speaking: saṃvṛti-satya speaking of arising and ceasing is taken as non-arising and non-ceasing being what saṃvṛti-satya does not speak, which is called saṃvṛti-satya not speaking. This clarifies that provisional arising and ceasing is existent, hence it is called non-thusness. Neither arising nor ceasing is transcending provisional arising and ceasing, and is also the meaning of emptiness, which is why it is thusness. The former thusness is shallow, while the latter thusness is deep; the former thusness empties intrinsic nature, while the latter thusness empties the provisional. Paramārtha-satya also completely possesses these two kinds of thusness and two kinds of non-thusness.