淨名玄論 6.28

6.28

次如前明世諦假有絕四句即是如，真諦假空絕四句亦是如。此明二諦同絕實四句。假有為世諦絕實有四句，假空為真諦絕實空四句，以名之為如。如假有無，即是不絕，故名不如也。問：二諦絕、絕二諦，云何異？答：二諦絕者，如前所明也。絕二諦者，明真俗俗真。真非真、俗非俗，故名絕二諦也。又雖絕而常二諦，故云絕二諦；雖二諦而常絕，故云二諦絕也。問：《釋論》明如不如，與今明如，何異？答：《釋論》明三如，地堅等為下如、地無常生滅為中如、地不生不滅為上如。前二如即是今世諦如，上如即真諦如也。又此三如，皆是世諦如。何以知之？前云生滅是世諦不如、不生不滅為世諦如，故上如是世諦如也。若非不生非不滅，為真諦如。問：《釋論》既明三如，何者為三不如？答：異此三如，即三不如也。又《釋論》就得失深淺明如不如。地堅為如；不知地堅，謂地不堅，名為不如。上中亦爾。又深淺明者，不生滅為上如、生滅為不如、無常生滅為中如。事中地堅為不如、地堅為如；若外道及世間，不識地堅，謂為常有，名為不如。問：前云生滅是世諦說、不生滅是世諦說。不生滅是世諦不說、不生滅是真說、非不生滅是真諦不說者，世諦不諦說何異。答？若漸捨二而論，則不異也。若世諦說假生滅、不說實生滅，與真諦不生滅則異。世諦不實生滅、真諦不假生滅，故異也。問：既有三重二諦，亦有三重如不如不？答：得以空有皆世諦、非空有為真諦，則如不如皆不如，非不如名為如也。

Next, as explained previously, nominal existence in saṃvṛti-satya cutting off the catuṣkoṭi is precisely tathatā; nominal emptiness in paramārtha-satya cutting off the catuṣkoṭi is likewise tathatā. This explains that the two truths alike cut off the real catuṣkoṭi. Nominal existence being saṃvṛti-satya cuts off the four propositions of real existence, and nominal emptiness being paramārtha-satya cuts off the four propositions of real emptiness; hence they are named tathatā. If nominal existence and non-existence do not cut them off, they are therefore termed non-tathatā. Question: Between 'the cutting off of the two truths' and 'cutting off the two truths', what is the difference? Answer: 'The cutting off of the two truths' is as explained previously. 'Cutting off the two truths' explains that the real is the conventional, and the conventional is the real; the real is not the real, and the conventional is not the conventional, so it is named 'cutting off the two truths'. Furthermore, although there is cutting off, there are constantly the two truths, so it is called 'cutting off the two truths'; although there are two truths, there is constant cutting off, so it is called 'the cutting off of the two truths'. Question: How does the Dazhidulun's explanation of tathatā and non-tathatā differ from the explanation of tathatā here? Answer: The Dazhidulun explains three kinds of tathatā: the solidity of earth and the like is the lower tathatā; the impermanent arising and ceasing of earth is the intermediate tathatā; the non-arising and non-ceasing of earth is the superior tathatā. The first two tathatās are precisely the tathatā of saṃvṛti-satya here, and the superior tathatā is precisely the tathatā of paramārtha-satya. Moreover, all three tathatās are the tathatā of saṃvṛti-satya. How is this known? Previously it was said that arising and ceasing are the non-tathatā of saṃvṛti-satya, and non-arising and non-ceasing are the tathatā of saṃvṛti-satya; therefore the superior tathatā is the tathatā of saṃvṛti-satya. If it is neither non-arising nor non-ceasing, that is the tathatā of paramārtha-satya. Question: Since the Dazhidulun explains three tathatās, what are the three non-tathatās? Answer: What differs from these three tathatās is precisely the three non-tathatās. Furthermore, the Dazhidulun explains tathatā and non-tathatā in terms of correctness and error, depth and shallowness. The solidity of earth is tathatā; not knowing the solidity of earth and considering earth not to be solid is named non-tathatā. The superior and intermediate are also like this. Furthermore, explaining in terms of depth and shallowness: non-arising and non-ceasing are the superior tathatā; arising and ceasing are non-tathatā; impermanent arising and ceasing are the intermediate tathatā. In terms of phenomenal facts, the solidity of earth is non-tathatā, and the solidity of earth is tathatā; if non-Buddhists and worldly people do not recognize the solidity of earth and consider it to be permanent, it is named non-tathatā. Question: Earlier it was said that arising and ceasing are spoken in saṃvṛti-satya, and non-arising and non-ceasing are spoken in saṃvṛti-satya. When non-arising and non-ceasing are unspoken in saṃvṛti-satya, non-arising and non-ceasing are spoken in paramārtha-satya, and neither non-arising nor non-ceasing are unspoken in paramārtha-satya, what is the difference between the speaking of saṃvṛti-satya and paramārtha-satya? Answer: If discussed in terms of gradually relinquishing both, then there is no difference. If saṃvṛti-satya speaks of nominal arising and ceasing without speaking of real arising and ceasing, this differs from the non-arising and non-ceasing of paramārtha-satya. Saṃvṛti-satya does not [speak of] real arising and ceasing, and paramārtha-satya does not [speak of] nominal arising and ceasing; hence they differ. Question: Since there are three levels of the two truths, are there also three levels of tathatā and non-tathatā? Answer: It is permissible: taking both emptiness and existence as saṃvṛti-satya and non-emptiness-and-existence as paramārtha-satya, then both tathatā and non-tathatā are non-tathatā, and that which is not non-tathatā is named tathatā.