淨名玄論 6.34

6.34

考宗。問：同具一切法，云何有內外異？答：理內一切法皆是因緣義，理外一切法非假名義，是故為異。問：若理內外具一切法者，理內既有因緣假名，理外亦應有因緣假名。何得將因緣假名簡理內外耶？答：如所問也。理外亦有假，但假是假故段，有假可得，名有所得假。理內假不自假，名為不假假。而假無所假，故無假可得，名理內假。問：理內外既具一切法，亦應理內外自有無所得。何以故將得無得分內外？答：亦如所問。理外無所得者，如真諦洞遣，四句不及、百非皆忘，此是無所得故無所有。屯無所得故，故是有所得之無所得。理內六不得無所得，故名無所得。問：理外既具一切法，亦應有不得無所得。答：理外不能以得為無得、無得不得，說為無說、無說為說，故有定隔礙。今總判欲斷此問。更來者，明理外具一切法者，具理外一切法耳，不見理內一切法。理內亦爾，但具理內一切法耳，不具理外一切法也。又理外雖具生死涅槃一切法，若生死若涅槃皆是生死，若得無得皆是有得也。問：若爾，理外真俗皆俗耶？答：亦得如屯，故理外真俗皆是凡情，所謂世俗法耳。理內因緣二諦是聖人境界，故二皆名真諦。問：經論中何處云理內外二具一切法耶？答：《中論》云「外人具二，立一切法」，論主明因緣故有一切法，即其事也。問：開二轍義，欲何所明耶？答：欲顯得失，明由來立義墮理外義中，屬今理外二諦所攝。

Examining the fundamental doctrine. Question: Since both alike possess all phenomena, how is there a difference between inside and outside? Answer: All phenomena inside the principle are the meaning of dependent origination; all phenomena outside the principle are not the meaning of nominal designation. For this reason they differ. Question: If both inside and outside the principle possess all phenomena, since inside the principle has nominal designation through dependent origination, outside the principle should also have nominal designation through dependent origination. How can one use nominal designation through dependent origination to distinguish between inside and outside the principle? Answer: It is as you ask. Outside the principle there is also designation, but designation is merely fixed as designation; having a designation that can be apprehended is called 'designation with apprehension'. Inside the principle, designation is not by itself designation, which is called 'non-designative designation'. Since designation has nothing to designate, no designation can be apprehended, which is called designation inside the principle. Question: Since inside and outside the principle both possess all phenomena, both inside and outside the principle should naturally have non-apprehension. Why do you use apprehension and non-apprehension to divide inside and outside? Answer: It is also as you ask. Non-apprehension outside the principle is like paramārtha-satya thoroughly dispelling [phenomena], where the catuṣkoṭi does not reach and the hundred negations are all forgotten; this is having nothing existent because of having nothing apprehended. Merely because of having nothing apprehended, it is the non-apprehension of an apprehender. Inside the principle, even non-apprehension cannot be apprehended; therefore it is called non-apprehension. Question: Since outside the principle possesses all phenomena, it should also have 'even non-apprehension cannot be apprehended'. Answer: Outside the principle one cannot take apprehension as non-apprehension, non-apprehension as unapprehended, speaking as non-speaking, and non-speaking as speaking; therefore there are fixed barriers. Now, giving a definitive judgment to cut off this question should it come again: when it is explained that outside the principle possesses all phenomena, it only possesses all phenomena outside the principle and does not see all phenomena inside the principle. Inside the principle is also like this: it only possesses all phenomena inside the principle, and does not possess all phenomena outside the principle. Furthermore, although outside the principle possesses all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, whether saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, all are saṃsāra; whether apprehension or non-apprehension, all are having apprehension. Question: If so, are the real and conventional outside the principle both conventional? Answer: It can also be like this. Therefore the real and conventional outside the principle are both ordinary worldly sentiments, what are called worldly conventions. The two truths of dependent origination inside the principle are the realm of the sage; therefore both are called paramārtha-satya. Question: Where in the sūtras and treatises is it said that inside and outside the principle both possess all phenomena? Answer: The Madhyamakaśāstra states, 'The opponent possesses both and establishes all phenomena,' and the treatise master explains that because of dependent origination all phenomena exist; that is precisely this matter. Question: By opening the doctrine of the two tracks, what is it intended to illuminate? Answer: It is intended to reveal correctness and error, clarifying that past doctrines fall into the doctrine outside the principle and are subsumed under the two truths outside the principle here.