淨名玄論 6.31

6.31

七、說不說門考宗。問：子乃欲抑舊拔新，終不能超乎城外。請問：三轉之教名為可說，不二之理不可說以不？答：一往如此。問：他重明世諦可說、真諦不可說，則世諦攝前三門；真諦即是一理，即理教猶是二諦義耳。答：子不領前意也。今明三轉者，所三假之俗為有、四絕之理為無，以此有無為初節意也。第二第三非子意所知。假令真諦一切絕、世辨絕是三段，今明如是三假即是有、一切絕即是無。如斯有無，為初節義也。又師作三節意者，為欲拔由來有無二諦之心，必能改之則不住非二非不二，則二諦之見不生、正觀之懷便發。問：他意本立真諦一切皆絕，與今非二非不二復何異耶？答：他言真諦一切皆絕，而世諦一切皆絕。而世諦終一切皆有，還是有無，不免二見。又無所往，終是真內，可得定出真外耶？今則不爾，非真非不真、非二非不二。問：他明真諦亦非真非不真、非二非不二。答：子乃明真諦之理非真非不真，而非真非不真終歸真諦。今明諸法非不真，不云真諦非真非不真，一不同也。又非真非不真，子乃終歸非真非不真，不能歸真諦，二不同也。

Examining the fundamental doctrine through the gate of spoken and unspoken. Question: You merely wish to suppress the old and promote the new, yet in the end you cannot transcend beyond the city walls. Let me ask: is the teaching of the three transitions termed 'expressible', while the principle of nonduality is 'ineffable', or not? Answer: At a first glance it is so. Question: When others restate that saṃvṛti-satya is expressible and paramārtha-satya is ineffable, then saṃvṛti-satya subsumes your preceding three gates; paramārtha-satya is precisely the single principle. Thus principle and teaching are still just the meaning of the two truths! Answer: You have not grasped the previous intention. What is now explained as three transitions takes the conventionality of the three designations as existence, and the principle of the four cuttings-off as non-existence; using this existence and non-existence is the purport of the first step. The second and third steps are not what your mind knows. Even granting that paramārtha-satya cuts off everything and worldly discernment cuts off these three stages, now it is explained that such three designations are precisely existence, and the cutting off of everything is precisely non-existence. Such existence and non-existence constitute the meaning of the first step. Furthermore, the master made the intention of the three steps in order to uproot the long-standing conception of the two truths of existence and non-existence; if one can change it, one will not abide in neither duality nor nonduality, and then views regarding the two truths will not arise, and the state of mind of correct contemplation will readily occur. Question: The intention of others originally established that paramārtha-satya cuts off everything; how does that differ from the present 'neither duality nor nonduality'? Answer: Others say that paramārtha-satya cuts off everything, yet saṃvṛti-satya does not cut off everything; and saṃvṛti-satya in the end is entirely existent. This is still existence and non-existence, and does not escape the two views. Moreover, having nowhere to go, it is ultimately within the real; can it definitively emerge outside the real? Here it is not so: it is neither real nor not real, neither dual nor nondual. Question: Others also explain paramārtha-satya as neither real nor not real, neither dual nor nondual. Answer: You merely explain that the principle of paramārtha-satya is neither real nor not real, yet 'neither real nor not real' ultimately reverts to paramārtha-satya. Here it is explained that all phenomena are not unreal, without saying that paramārtha-satya is neither real nor not real; this is the first difference. Furthermore, regarding neither real nor not real, you ultimately revert to neither real nor not real and cannot revert to paramārtha-satya; this is the second difference.