淨名玄論 6.24

6.24

Question: Since being existent with respect to ordinary beings is an error, is being non-existent with respect to noble ones also an error?
Answer: Provisionally speaking, with respect to ordinary beings, the noble [perspective] is clarified as correct; but when looked at from [the standpoint of] the teaching-satya, both are errors. Since form has never been existent or non-existent, yet one forms an understanding of existence or non-existence, how could that not be an error?
Question: The sūtra states: "All saṃvṛti-satya, if with respect to the Tathāgata, is indeed the supreme paramārtha-satya." Is this also an error?
Answer: Provisionally, in contrast to the existence of ordinary beings, it is an error, and the emptiness of the noble ones is praised as correct. But if considered from [the standpoint of] the teaching-satya, the satya with respect to [subjects] not only fails to express the principle of nonduality, it also fails to attain the teaching capable of expressing it; it is merely what is seen by conceptual attachment. However, the Tathāgata understands that form in reality has never been empty or existent. If one recognizes the two kinds of two truths, then the five objections naturally dissolve.
Question: Although the objection has this resolution, it is still not yet evident. Now, when you state that the existence and non-existence of form is the teaching-satya, when it is not spoken, is the existence and non-existence of form the teaching-satya?
Answer: Since speaking is taken as the teaching, when the Buddha does not speak, there is no teaching-satya.
Question: If that is so, then there are only ever the two satyas with respect to [subjects], and there would be no existence and non-existence of causes and conditions.
Answer: All phenomena are constantly the existence and non-existence with respect to the two [classes of subjects], and are also constantly the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. If with respect to the two conditions, that is precisely the existence and non-existence of the two satyas with respect to [subjects]. The Buddhas and bodhisattvas understand that this form is precisely the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. However, between "with respect to" and "teaching", there have never been two: with respect to the two conditions, then the teaching is established; in understanding and awakening, then "with respect to" becomes the teaching.
Question: If with respect to the two conditions it is precisely the existence and non-existence with respect to the two [classes of subjects], then from the perspective of Buddhas and bodhisattvas it is precisely the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. If this existence and non-existence of causes and conditions is precisely the object of causes and conditions, how can it be said to be the teaching?
Answer: The existence and non-existence of causes and conditions has never been existent or non-existent; therefore, although it is existent and non-existent, it is neither existent nor non-existent. Such existence and non-existence is capable of revealing nonduality, which is precisely the meaning of the teaching.
Question: If the Buddha does not speak, there is constantly the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions. How could the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions be the teaching?
Answer: We do not only take the sense of speaking as the teaching; the sūtras explain that the six sense-objects are all teachings.
Question: If that is so, what is the difference between object and teaching?
Answer: This existence and non-existence of causes and conditions can be discussed from two perspectives. Giving rise to cognition is the object; being capable of revealing the principle of nonduality—neither existent nor non-existent—is the teaching. This is based on the Buddha's non-speaking, where object and teaching naturally exist. If explaining object and teaching based on the sense of speaking: the Buddha illuminates existence and non-existence, and existence and non-existence are called the object; the Buddha speaks of existence and non-existence, and existence and non-existence are the teaching.
Question: Others also say that illuminating existence and non-existence means existence and non-existence are the object, and speaking of existence and non-existence means existence and non-existence are the teaching. How does this differ from the present [view]?
Answer: Others only attain the existence and non-existence of fixed nature with respect to the two [classes of subjects]; this existence and non-existence cannot reveal neither-existence-nor-non-existence, hence it is not the teaching. Moreover, the existence and non-existence of causes and conditions is the object, whereas the existence and non-existence of fixed nature is not the object. Why? Existence does not exist from itself; it exists due to non-existence. Non-existence does not not-exist from itself; it is non-existent due to existence. Being non-existent due to existence, non-existence is the non-existence of existence; being existent due to non-existence, existence is the existence of non-existence. Understanding this existence and non-existence of causes and conditions can generate the two wisdoms: recognizing that existence is the existence of non-existence gives rise to real expedient wisdom; understanding that non-existence is the non-existence of existence gives rise to expedient real wisdom. If it were existence and non-existence of fixed nature, it would give rise to the two views of annihilation and permanence, and therefore cannot be called an object.