淨名玄論 6.26

6.26

Others merely explain that saṃvṛti-satya is spoken and paramārtha-satya is not spoken. Saṃvṛti-satya is the three designations, and because of the three designations it can be spoken; paramārtha-satya is the four obliterations, and because of the four obliterations it cannot be spoken. The various masters share this single explanation and have no different judgment. Now we ask: Saṃvṛti-satya can only be spoken, and cannot be made inexpressible; paramārtha-satya cannot be spoken, and cannot be made expressible. Is this not a doctrine of fixed nature? They say: Although saṃvṛti-satya can be spoken, it is precisely paramārtha that cannot be spoken. Paramārtha being inexpressible is precisely saṃvṛti being expressible; therefore it is not fixed nature. We ask: Saṃvṛti is precisely paramārtha, hence it cannot be spoken. Is this saṃvṛti being inexpressible, or paramārtha being inexpressible? Answer: It is still just paramārtha being inexpressible. Question: If so, saṃvṛti ultimately remains two, with no meaning of being inexpressible. Is this not fixed nature? Clarifying correctness in contrast to error: one causes the overall contemplation of paramārtha and saṃvṛti to possess four propositions: 1. saṃvṛti-satya is spoken and paramārtha is not spoken; 2. paramārtha is spoken and saṃvṛti is not spoken; 3. both are only spoken; 4. both are only not spoken. These four propositions have multiple approaches, which will now be fully related.
First, saṃvṛti-satya speaks of arising and ceasing, while paramārtha-satya does not speak of arising and ceasing; hence it is said that saṃvṛti-satya is spoken and paramārtha-satya is not spoken.
Second, paramārtha-satya speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing, while saṃvṛti-satya does not speak of non-arising and non-ceasing; hence paramārtha-satya is spoken and saṃvṛti-satya is not spoken.
Third, saṃvṛti-satya speaks of arising and ceasing, and paramārtha-satya speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing; hence both satyas are only spoken.
Fourth, saṃvṛti-satya does not speak of the absence of arising and ceasing, and paramārtha-satya does not speak of arising and ceasing; hence it is said that both satyas are only not spoken.
Question: Where do these four propositions come from?
Answer: The first fascicle of the Dazhidulun says: "Persons and so forth exist on account of saṃvṛti-satya... they exist on account of the primary meaning, and are non-existent on account of saṃvṛti-satya"; this is precisely this meaning.
Second, explaining arising and ceasing is what saṃvṛti-satya speaks, and non-arising and non-ceasing is what saṃvṛti-satya does not speak; neither arising nor ceasing is what paramārtha-satya speaks, and neither non-arising nor non-ceasing is what paramārtha-satya does not speak: this is both satyas being only spoken and only not spoken.
Third, saṃvṛti-satya speaks and paramārtha-satya does not speak: explaining that speaking of arising and ceasing and speaking of non-arising and non-ceasing are both spoken because of saṃvṛti-satya, while paramārtha-satya neither speaks of arising and ceasing nor speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing; hence it is said that saṃvṛti-satya speaks and paramārtha-satya does not speak.
Fourth, paramārtha-satya speaks and saṃvṛti-satya does not speak: although saṃvṛti-satya speaks of arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing, in reality nothing is spoken; although paramārtha-satya has nothing spoken, there is nothing it does not speak.
Question: Although saṃvṛti-satya speaks, nothing is spoken, and when nothing is spoken it enters paramārtha-satya; although paramārtha-satya has nothing spoken, there is nothing it does not speak, which is still saṃvṛti-satya. Where is there saṃvṛti-satya not speaking and paramārtha-satya speaking?
Answer: It is only like this in the doctrine of fixed nature with apprehension. Saṃvṛti-satya of itself is speaking, and if nothing is spoken, it belongs to paramārtha-satya. Paramārtha-satya of itself has nothing spoken, and if there is speaking, it still belongs to saṃvṛti-satya. Such paramārtha and saṃvṛti are both obstructing Dharma approaches. Now we clarify that because the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have unobstructed emptiness and existence of causes and conditions without apprehension: emptiness is the emptiness of existence, and existence is the existence of emptiness. Emptiness being the emptiness of existence, although empty, it exists; existence being the existence of emptiness, although existent, it is empty. Speaking is the speaking of non-speaking, and non-speaking is the non-speaking of speaking. Because speaking is the speaking of non-speaking, although speaking, nothing is spoken; because non-speaking is the non-speaking of speaking, although not speaking, it constantly speaks. Therefore, saṃvṛti-satya does not speak while paramārtha-satya speaks.