[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [淨名玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780) › 6.9 # 淨名玄論 6.9 淨名玄論 6.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6.9) 問：今且舉《成論》明三假義，不墮失門。何者？彼明三假有為世諦，三假空為真諦。即三假而常四忘、即四忘而常三假。即三假而常四忘，故有不自有；即四忘而常三假，故空不自空。故非性義。答：三假為世諦、四忘為真諦者，世諦之有，為待真空、為不待耶？即此一責，便墮二負門。若言世諦待真諦者，則世諦為能待、真諦為所待，二諦便是相待假，何得定三假是世諦、四忘為真諦耶？若言世諦之有不待真空者，既不相待，便成自性。故不可答也。問：世諦之有，不得待真諦之體，以真體絕故不可相待。答：今世諦之有待世諦。真若之名故。有待於無。無上過也。 > Question: Suppose we now cite the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra's explanation of the three provisionalities (saṃjñā) to show it does not fall into error. Why? That text explains that the three provisionalities as existent are saṃvṛti-satya, while the three provisionalities as empty are paramārtha-satya. Being identical with the three provisionalities, it is always the four negations (catur-vācā); being identical with the four negations, it is always the three provisionalities. Being identical with the three provisionalities yet always the four negations, existence does not exist of itself; being identical with the four negations yet always the three provisionalities, emptiness is not empty of itself. Therefore, it does not mean svabhāva. Answer: If the three provisionalities are saṃvṛti-satya and the four negations are paramārtha-satya, does the existence of saṃvṛti-satya depend on true emptiness, or does it not depend on it? This single interrogation leads to two unacceptable conclusions. If you say that saṃvṛti-satya depends on paramārtha-satya, then saṃvṛti-satya is that which depends and paramārtha-satya is that which is depended upon; the two truths would then merely be provisionality of mutual dependence. How then could one fix the three provisionalities as saṃvṛti-satya and the four negations as paramārtha-satya? If you say that the existence of saṃvṛti-satya does not depend on true emptiness, then since it is not mutually dependent, it becomes svabhāva. Therefore, it cannot be answered \[in this way\]. Question: The existence of saṃvṛti-satya cannot depend on the essence of paramārtha-satya, because the true essence is transcendent and therefore cannot enter mutual dependence. Answer: Now, if the existence of saṃvṛti-satya depends on the name of saṃvṛti-satya and the name of paramārtha-satya, existence depends on non-existence, and there is no such fault. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6.8) - [Next: 6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6.10) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780~en-mt.6.9) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.6.9) · Pramāṇa