淨名玄論 6.23

6.23

Question: What texts prove that the two truths are teaching? Answer: The textual passages are extremely numerous; let us briefly cite one sūtra and one treatise each. The treatise (*Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*) says: 'The Buddhas teach the Dharma relying on the two truths'; therefore the two truths are teaching. The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: 'Bodhisattvas abide in the two truths to teach the Dharma for sentient beings. For those attached to being they teach emptiness; for those attached to emptiness they teach being.' Thus we know the two truths are teaching. The treatise cites what the Buddha said, and the sūtra clarifies what the bodhisattva said; therefore, in both sūtras and treatises, Buddhas and bodhisattvas all clarify that the two truths are teaching. Question: If you prove that the two truths are teaching with five meanings and two texts, now we also use five objections and two texts to show that the two truths are not teaching. First, if one hears that the two truths are teaching, then when the Buddha speaks the teaching gate there are two truths, and when he does not speak there should be no two truths. If so, originally the two truths gave rise to the two cognitions; when the Buddha does not speak the two truths, there are no two truths, and since there are no two truths, what does the Buddha illuminate? Second, if the two truths are teaching, the six pāramitās and other practices are all saṃvṛti-satya. When the Buddha does not speak saṃvṛti-satya, there is no saṃvṛti-satya, and then there would be no six pāramitās and other practices. If so, there would only be the Dharma jewel of the expressive teaching, and no Dharma jewel of wholesome karma. Third, the two truths serve as the object that generates the two cognitions; the two truths are named the Dharma jewel of the objective realm. If the two truths are teaching, there is only the Dharma jewel of the expressive teaching, and no Dharma jewel of the objective realm. If you say that because the teaching generates cognition it is alternatively called an object, then when the Buddha does not speak the teaching, there is no teaching that can be converted, and there would be no object. Fourth, if the two truths are teaching, form and the myriad phenomena are all saṃvṛti-satya. Since saṃvṛti-satya is teaching, form and the myriad phenomena should also be teaching. If so, when the Buddha does not speak saṃvṛti-satya, there would be no form or myriad phenomena. Fifth, if saṃvṛti-satya is teaching, saṃvṛti-satya would only have the teaching-fire, and should lack the function of real fire. If fire were only teaching, speaking 'fire' with the mouth should burn the mouth. Next, we cite two texts to prove that the two truths are not teaching. If one says that paramārtha-satya is teaching, the sūtra says: 'Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics permanently abide'; but teaching exists only when there is a Buddha and does not exist when there is no Buddha—how could it permanently abide? The sūtra says: 'Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, they permanently exist of themselves'; hence we know saṃvṛti-satya is not teaching. Answer: There are two kinds of truths: first, truths in relation to [perspective] (yuditi); second, truths as teaching (jiaoditi). Truths in relation to [perspective] means: form has never been being or non-being, yet in relation to the ordinary it is being, termed saṃvṛti-satya; in relation to the sage it is emptiness, termed paramārtha-satya. Because being in relation to the ordinary is named saṃvṛti-satya, the myriad phenomena are not lost; because emptiness in relation to the sage is named paramārtha-satya, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics permanently abide. Truths as teaching means: the Buddhas and bodhisattvas thoroughly comprehend that form has never been being or non-being, and to transform sentient beings, they speak of being and non-being as the two truths, wishing to make them awaken through this being and non-being to neither being nor non-being—this is teaching. Now the old doctrines explaining that the two truths are principle: this is merely the two truths in relation to [perspective]. When truths in relation to [perspective] are compared with truths as teaching, they not only lose the nondual principle, but also lose the teaching capable of expressing it.